Intensified violence greets 'democratic' Iraqi cabinet

It's no use telling President Bush that Iraqis do not like American democracy run by some expatriates; they want something home grown, something of their own -- something they are used to. It is known to all that the Arabs tried to bring the wandering Beduins into the comforts of the cities by providing all modern amenities, but they did not succeed; Beduins left for their natural habitats -- natural surroundings. Similarly, Arabs' culture should determine the type of democracy they want. Bush-Blair never understood this and hence the terrible blood-shed in Iraq.

There is another type of blood-shed in Britain. Blair won the third term but Iraq debacle cost Labour about hundred seats. So, Blair must go -- that's the demand. Unfortunate indeed! A man of such brilliance, intelligence and dynamism has to face such a political disaster just because he fell into Bush's trap in the name of "special" relationship. Prime Minister Blair could not properly read the minds of extremely democratic minded British people and hence the political disaster for him. Bush's case is different. He is spared because Americans apparently has written off another four years of Bush. He is already a lame duck president. Let him go round and spread "democracy" and the terrible mess along with it. Another 9/11 is highly unlikely as Ariel Sharon and Israeli Mossad have already achieved what they wanted -- removal of their worst enemy Saddam, death of Arafat (many say Israel poisoned him) ending the occupation of Syrians in Lebanon by branding them as assassins of Rafik Hariri. But no word on Israel's occupation of Palestine and American occupation of Iraq, and most importantly -- onset of a serious conflict between Christianity and Islam.

President Bush got a mild warning from President Putin on America's insistence on human rights in Russia.. America has its worst record of white-black discrimination for centuries, which still exists in some perceptible form, its recent trampling of human rights in Guantanomo Bay, Abu Garaib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, also its record of kick-open the doors of the Iraqis by the US forces while women and children were enjoining their midnight sleep on the plea of finding the "insurgents", deliberate flattening of Fallujah and killing of civilians there and other towns of Iraq to stop Iraqi insurgency, bombing of civilians in a marriage party in Afghanistan etc. So President Bush should not go round and preach the values of human rights, freedom and democracy to others. The US must try to improve upon its own record in these areas. The world is no more in a mood to take things lying down. All are aware of the atrocities of Saddam, but what about the atrocities of today? Saddam gassed Kurds as he took them to be the insurgents and Bush has been doing the same thing to the Iraqi civilians by taking them to be the insurgents. The difference seems to be only in the use of type of weapons. Interestingly, Saddam was given all these weapons by America -- to be more precise by Rumsfeld in early '80s. It's a terribly unjust world.

Iraq would continue to be a battleground and unfortunately many more Americans would give their lives. The remaining coalition forces would gradually leave the battle field leaving things to the Americans and poor Iraqis who collaborate with the Americans. Rumsfeld reportedly came up with an offer -- apparently a near-pragmatic one -- to Saddam, something unusual from a man like Rumsfeld. The offer reportedly was that Saddam would get freedom if he openly called on the "insurgents" to stop violence. As expected, Saddam rejected it out of hand. The idea was timely and good for America. Rumsfeld would be advised to think in terms of upgrading the offer. Saddam should be offered the post of President, of course a constitutional head, of the new Iraqi government in place of the present Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani who could be one of the Vice Presidents. The agreement with Saddam should include conditions that he would accept the present cabinet though a lot of his enemies are there and agree to allow the Americans to have as much oil as needed at agreed prices.

The suggestion would sound like a big joke to many but it's worth trying. It might work. Here nobody loses; indeed a win win situation for all. Rumsfeld should pursue it and remain ready to modify the offer conditions depending on the situation. The reason is simple. President Bush may be interested to have an Arab style open execution of Saddam, but it appears impossible under the present circumstances as the present Iraqi president has already declared that he would not sign on any verdict leading to Saddam's death. So when Saddam cannot be hanged, it's better to hand over the mess to him and the present Cabinet. With Saddam as President, regardless of whether he has any power or not, the violence should stop overnight paving the way for the Americans to depart if they want to. The bottom line is Iraqi violence and deaths must stop. This can be achieved only if Saddam agrees to call for a total halt of the violence.

Iraq has changed the strategic situation of the Mid East. This is particularly so in view of the fact that Iran apparently has the ability to produce nuclear bomb. Iran's negotiating tactics with EU is, as it seems, for buying time. This EU understands very well but is probably helpless. Any country should have the right to have the deterrent -- whether it produces it or buys from somewhere. Unfortunately, this appears necessary under the present system to stop any unilateral attack on any flimsy ground. The non-proliferation treaty is certainly one sided as it gives unchallenged benefit to the N- powers to continue to dominate the world. The simple question is, if they can have N-bomb why can't others? Who decides whether a country is rouge or not? Has the UN set any criteria? What about Israel? Is it not a rogue state? How many innocent Palestinians have been killed by Israel? How many more Palestinians need be killed by Israel to be declared as the rogue state? Why the UN could not stop Israel in having the N-bombs? Israeli whistle blower Unonou openly said that Israel has over 200 nuclear bombs. Did Al- Baradei do anything to investigate Israel's nuclear arsenal? He is running after only Iran and N Korea. The UN body must answer these questions.

Why the UN could not stop nuclear powers and particularly the US in having vertical proliferations? Does it not fall under NPT? Can the world get rid of all nuclear weapons? If not, then let all others have it if they can afford it. The possession of nuclear bombs has, indeed, turned out to be a stabilising factor as already proved by India and Pakistan. The world may even be safer with practically all countries having nuclear bombs. Nobody would dare attacking any country.

To many states, under the present threat of unilateral attacks, holding on to sovereignty for which they need deterrent, appears to be more crucial than providing food to the people. It is too bad in terms of human rights, but to them sovereignty is no less important. NPT should be strictly applicable only to situations like handing over nuclear materials or dirty bombs to the extremists -- whether Muslims, Christians or Jews.

Iran and N Korea appear to be determined to take advantage of the present precarious situation of the US in terms of its ability to handle any other military crisis occurring in any other place. The US is reportedly not in a position to take care of Iran and N Korea even if they decide to go nuclear openly as long as the US continues to remain bogged down in Iraq. In the event of any attack on either one, the European powers are unlikely to join. Russia's President Putin has already given out its preference not to get engaged in any war -- cold or hot. So the situation remains difficult for the US and also for the world in general.

The US has also to consider the other consequential developments in M-E as a result of its military action and phony democracy in Iraq. M-E would now continue to experience bizarre situation in terms of religious sects -- Shia, Sunni, Kurds and the rest of it. Syria is ruled by Alwaites -- the sect basically a part of Shia community and it has good relationship with Iran. Iran is Shia and now the ruling party in Iraq is Shia. Lebanon has Shia Hezbullah. With the departure of Saddam and Sunni domination, Iran has a unique and invincible position in the Middle East This would be its main strength while it pursues its nuclear ambition.

Muslehuddin Ahmad is a former Secretary and Ambassador.