vsbabu.org

Blair blames Indian Firms?

Indian firms helped Iraqi missile programme: Blair “Stating that Iraq has "military plans" for the use of chemical and biological weapons even against its own population and that it is able and willing to deploy some of its deadliest weapons in under an hour from the order, Britain on Tuesday alleged that Baghdad had obtained some key ingredients from some Indian companies.”

I usually don’t like to get write about international politics. But all this talk about how the current leaders of USA and UK are absolutely on moral high ground on "regime change", "getting rid of Saddam Hussein", "Schroeder is harming transatlantic harmony", "axis of evil" etc. are really beginning to get annoying.

Mr.Blair and Mr.Bush would do well to remember that during Iran-Iraq war, the governments at the time armed Hussein (and the Mujaheddin’s in Afghanistan) for short term goals. If these has come back to bite them, then it should be an avenue for some soul searching. Trying to find what other nations are to blame doesn’t work always.

My view points on this:

• Mr. Hussein knows how to do one thing very well. His survival. Whatever else he is, he is not a fool. He is not going to use his weapons of mass destruction against targets in USA or UK, even if he has delivery systems ready, because that will immediately cause retaliation that will result in his destruction.
• Weapons of mass destruction, whether controlled by dictators or by a democracy are all bad. If this is such a big threat, why has not science advanced enough to make things that protect, rather than destruct? I think it is mainly because of democracies. Defence contracts are the most lucrative things in a capitalist society. So, defense firms have no real incentive to research and develop technologies that protect citizens.
• Middle-East still boils over their history as colonies of the West. The normal population might actually be seeing Mr.Hussein as someone who stands up for the right of common Arab man against the imperialistic west. So, an attack on Iraq will be perceived by many as an attack against Islam. This, coupled with the fact that the West are openly sharing bed with other dictators (ok, royal families - it is all the same) in the region, will be perceived as opportunism. What answer does the West has if a cleric tells his disciples that the West is against Islam, against Arabs, and all they care is for oil?
• Whether anyone likes it or not, Iraq and Iran are perhaps the most stable communities in the region. Chances of terrorism spreading across the world from these countries are minimal when compared to Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Perhaps these royal houses should be made to open up their communities.
• What happens if Saddam is ousted? USA wouldn’t want to maintain sizable military presence in the region for nation building. This will only give birth to more bin Ladens. Is there any Iraqi opposition that the Iraqi on the streets trust? Doubtful. If Iraq disintegrates into 4 or 5 regions, that will open up a pile of resources - human and weapons - for the terrorists.
• With great power come great responsibility. We can go at it alone is not a prudent thing to think because at this point of world history, any problems with US economy will have much more worse impact on rest of the world.
• Get a referendum passed in the UN. Support UN by providing resources to enforce the referendum. ie., US soldiers go to Iraq, if necessary, wearing UN badges.