Yesterday’s speech of the US president at the UN General Assembly became the central event in the international politics. As could be expected, the speech caused rather contradictory comments. Some people say, the speech was pronounced as an ultimatum to Iraq, and others treat it as an ultimatum to the UNO, which resolutions are so successfully ignored by Saddam Hussein. There is also an opinion that the speech is criticism to both, the UNO and Iraq. And finally, someone suggests that Bush is trying to win support of the world community in the war against Iraq.
On the whole, the US president probably aimed to cover all these subjects in the speech. The USA evidently won’t give up the idea of an offensive in Iraq, but currently Washington aims at gaining support of the world community for the operation. If the USA starts a war alone, its consequences can hardly be predicted. So, Hussein’s regime can and will be overthrown. And what is next? The overthrowing will inevitably increase popularity of extremist ideas in the Muslim world and not only. Quite naturally, more and more terrorist organizations will appear in the result. And those already existing ones, will receive more and more volunteers ready to wage jihad all over the world, the USA including.
Saddam Hussein’s regime can hardly be criticized as really very humane, it is disagreeable not only for George Bush, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, but other politicians as well. On the other hand, the mentioned above American politicians are sometimes disagreeable for other people in the world, however, this fact is not a reason to wage a war against the USA.
If the White House had indisputable evidence of Baghdad owing mass destruction weapons, it would be easier for the USA to explain necessity of an anti-Iraq war. However, there are no evidences of this kind yet. And Washington seems to be so much preoccupied with searches of such evidences. It is meant at that, it is Iraq itself not the USA who is to prove that Iraq has no mass destruction weapons. Everything would be OK, if the White House’s military rhetoric hadn’t provoked Baghdad for response harsh statements. As a result, UN military inspectors aren’t still allowed to Iraq. This is a reason for the USA, in its turn, to blame the UNO for ineffectiveness of its solutions.
Attempts of the Bush administration to prove necessity of an offensive against Iraq sometimes provoke rather strange statements. For example, it was even suggested that Saddam Hussein had kept close contacts with al-Qaeda and bin Laden. However, no substantial evidences of this fact could be given, and the White House had to admit weakness of the accusation. However, it is not ruled out that more statements of this kind may appear in the future.
For the time being, the USA still remains aloof from the rest of the world concerning military operation in Iraq. Even British Prime Minister Anthony Blair, the most consistent ally to George Bush, recently addressed trade union leaders in Blackpool and said, London wouldn’t join the war without UN mandate and resolutions of the British parliament.
Probably, even without any special intention, the USA achieved one goal only: people are afraid of it. To be more precise, America’s unpredictable foreign policy is what really awesome: today it dislikes Iraq, and tomorrow it will probably find someone else.
Although you may say we are high-flown, we would venture to mention
that fear causes hatred. And hatred, in its turn, can’t be liquidated with bombing. It is possible to overthrow Hussein’s regime which has caused so many crimes. But it is not ruled out that bin Laden of its own may next appear in Iraq and vengeance will start. There is no guarantee that this is impossible.