• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

FRIDAY'S PAPERS had this statement from the French President, Mr Jacques Chirac's office: "France, like every democracy, welcomes the fall of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and hopes there will be a rapid and effective end to the fighting". In other words, the `end' was the removal of Mr Saddam Hussein, and Paris, like all nations which value human liberty and free choice in the election of political leaders, has no hesitation in applauding its attainment.

But France has also been in the forefront of the camp opposed to the British-American military strike into Iraq, its stand being that such action should have had the UN imprimatur. What this means is that Paris, with other capitals, including New Delhi, has not supported the `means' used to attain an `end', universally acclaimed as a general proposition by the freedom-loving peoples of the world.

The `end' was, of course, attained by military force by, currently, the most powerful nation. (The word `currently' is been used to underscore the point that such attributes are a passing phase in every sense of the term — on evidence provided by history.) This obviously means the battle between the Iraqis and the British-American military force was patently unequal, which at once detracts from the achievement of the victors. Great victories are won against strong opponents. Since Mr Saddam Hussain's forces were not more than `paper tigers' (as the course of the war has shown, in which, according to Mr Donald Rumsfeld, there were "only 81 confirmed American combat casualties"), it follows, axiomatically, that the British-American victory was quite pedestrian in fact (the infamous arsenal of Mr Saddam Hussein is yet to be discovered).

Indeed, why only `pedestrian'? Some may even describe the `win' as nothing short of pyrrhic, the cost being not in terms of men and equipment but principle and conviction. What the American-British campaign has underscored is that, even in the early years of the 21st century (after the — as it now appears — largely unlearnt lessons of the 20th), there are political leaders in the most developed `free' nations who feel that, when it comes to the crunch, there is nothing unrighteous in relying on power flowing from the barrel of a gun, even if such action does not have the stamp of the international community. Which really means that we are going back to the barbaric ages where the strong always called the shot — in terms of temporal power. Already, Washington has warned Syria, Libya, Iran and North Korea to mend their ways if they want to avoid the Saddam Hussein treatment. Since human beings are what they are, the message is almost certainly meant for other countries as well which, because of their rich heritage, will never suffer the spiritual dominance of foreigners (and this, incidentally, includes the people of Iraq).

Perhaps, in one bloody stroke, Washington has all but lost the spiritual battle for the heart and mind of the peoples of the world. After this, can one prevent the proliferation of the likes of Osama bin Laden, et al, who, shorn of their messianic role, are actually the harbingers of the destruction of human civilisation, using the route of terror?

Ranabir Ray Choudhury

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Rail safety on paper

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line