Workers Daily Internet Edition Year 2003 No. 21

Year 2003 No. 21, March 17-19, 2003	ARCHIVE	HOME	SEARCH	SUBSCRIBE

Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA.
Phone: (Local Rate from outside London 0845 644 1979) 020 7627 0599
Web Site: http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail: office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to Workers' Publication Centre):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
70p per issue, £2.70 for 4 issues, £17 for 26 issues, £32 for 52 issues (including postage)
Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10

The People Will Not Accept Aggression and War
An Anti-War Government Is The Goal

Tony Blair, in introducing the motion in the emergency debate on Iraq, said at the outset that the debate demonstrated that democracy exists in Britain, and by implication the people in Iraq are struggling for such a democracy. Therefore the tough choice that he had set for the government must be held firm to. Why does it matter so much, he asked. He answered: "Because the outcome of this issue will not determine more than the fate of the Iraq regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people … It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st Century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the US; the relations within the EU and the way the US engages with the rest of the world. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation."

It can be seen why the Prime Minister has staked so much on this issue, according to his own logic. It is the "pattern of international politics for the next generation" that is a stake. Does Tony Blair realise how the people are taking up this challenge and declaring that they will not accept aggression and war, that their will must prevail, that an anti-war government is their goal?

The government’s motion itself could not have been filled with more distortions, which flow from the worldview of the administrations of the US and of Britain. It is astonishing that it did not even mention the impending war, that as a substantive motion it was duty bound to do. Instead it used the language of the US-British UN Resolutions of "all means necessary".

But the aim, on the other hand, could not have been more clear. It is that the aggression against Iraq would be carried out under the signboard of a "war of liberation". Such twisting of humanity’s high ideals is unconscionable.

Tony Blair thinks that ultimata are perfectly reasonable. He challenges, "I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position". His problem is that the majority of the people are doing just that. His Party is doing just that. The UN Security Council is doing just that. Tony Blair makes it clear what he considers to be the most reasonable thing there is – the "threat of force". Provided that this threat of force comes from the US and Britain.

Tony Blair’s speech in moving the government motion was very instructive. It was delivered in a tone of high passion. It summed up that he and his government are not intending to address and will never address the real solutions to real problems in the world. "The threat of chaos" according to him is the main enemy of humanity. The status quo must prevail and "tyrannical regimes with WMD and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam" are the "two begetters of chaos".

The world’s people know different. It is not tyrants and extreme terrorist groups in Tony Blair’s definition which are the begetters of chaos. It is the US superpower, its ally in Britain, and the imperialist and annexationist system which they espouse the are the begetters of chaos. Tony Blair will define a tyrant as it suits him. "What price our credibility with the next tyrant?" he asks, specifically referring to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The people will not accept the equation of Iraq with the DPRK. But the point is that Tony Blair is desperate to catch the anti-war movement off-guard, disorientate it, imbue it with chauvinism, and ultimately push through the aims of spreading the Anglo-US chaos world-wide.

It is the future of humanity which is at stake, and the chauvinism which has always profoundly characterised Tony Blair’s government is being used by him to try and block the anti-war movement taking a stand of principle and standing with the people of Iraq, with the Palestinian people, with the people of Korea who are the targets of Blair and Bush’s war.

The people must not and will not succumb to the emotional blackmail then Tony Blair larded on in his speech which suggested that to go to war against Iraq is to stand with the Iraqi people. The Prime Minister is perhaps too sophisticated to openly suggest that those that are strengthening their opposition to his aggression and warmongering are bosom friends of Saddam Hussein. But the implication is there. If British troops are pulled back, he asks, "Who will celebrate and who will weep?"

But his contempt for the opposition shines through. "This House wanted this decision. Well it has it," he sneers.

Tony Blair is wrong. It is not even the House of Commons which is decisive at this point. It is the working class, youth, women and all progressive people of Britain and the world who are decisive. The people are demonstrating the courage of their convictions. This is what Tony Blair does not appreciate. They will step up their opposition despite the impassioned words of the Prime Minister. They demand that the programme of an anti-war government be implemented, that there should be no British troops on foreign soil, that the United Nations should be the international forum where the equality of states is respected, and that Britain’s dreams of empire be put to an end once and for all. They are saying no to war and that they, the people, will decide for peace.

Iraq: Commons Motion

Following is the full text of the government's motion for Tuesday's emergency Iraq debate, tabled by Prime Minister Tony Blair, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, Chancellor Gordon Brown, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon.

That this House, notes its decisions of 25 November 2002 and 26 February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441;

Recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions pose a threat to international peace and security;

Notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions;

Regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances;

Notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today;

Believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions proceeding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;

Offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East;

In the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis;

And also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine.

The amendment was tabled by Labour former Culture Secretary Chris Smith and ex-defence minister Peter Kilfoyle, Tory ex-Cabinet minister Douglas Hogg, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell, Tory MP Edward Leigh and SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson. It reads:

This House believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established, especially given the absence of specific United Nations authorisation.

But in the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its total support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides.

Voting on the Commons Motion

List of Labour Government Resignations

Robin Cook's Resignation Speech

There follows the full text of Robin Cook's resignation speech in the House of Commons on Monday, March 17, as published on the BBC News website.

This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the backbenches.

I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.

None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.

It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.

On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.

I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.

I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.

It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.

We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner – not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.

History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.

Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.

It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.

It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.

Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

The threshold for war should always be high.

None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.

I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.

I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.

It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.

Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.

For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.

Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.

Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term – namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.

Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.

I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to Middle East peace, but Britain's positive role in the Middle East does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.

Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.

That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.

What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.

The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.

They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.

Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.

It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.

I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.

"Stop The War And Bring The Troops Home"

March and Rally in Newcastle – Don't Attack Iraq!

The "Mother Of All Bombs" – A New Challenge

by José Reinaldo Carvalho (*)

The United States has introduced recently the "mother of all bombs". The latest version of conventional weaponry, it is the new item in the American war that is about to be waged against Iraq. It is not a war in the strict sense of the term due to the evident disproportion between the power of the aggressor and the capacity of defence of the aggressed ones. There are more than 300,000 soldiers concentrated in the southern border of Iraq and hundreds of aircraft and battleships ready to attack the Arab country. The political and diplomatic pressures and the economic blackmail keep on being carried out with the intent to obtain the approval of Turkey so that its territory is used as spearhead in order to invade Iraq from the north.

The fact that the new artefact was recklessly and shamelessly displayed in TV news is a sign of the times. The script was just like an advertisement for a toy or some appliance for domestic or professional use. Barbaric aerial operations were already compared to a video game during the first Gulf War in 1991. Now the "mother of all bombs" the latest model of conventional weapons of mass destruction, is presented as the possibility to avoid war. A deadly artefact, a means of aggression, its images are divulged as a request to the Iraqi people, the Baath Party, Saddam Hussein’s administration and the Army’s generals and sub officials to give in so that the attack does not happen. The TV script starring the "mother of bombs" corresponds to a change in the typical language of the new stage of imperialist domination where the United States introduced a belligerent streak to their foreign policy. War was never such a natural matter being integrated to people’s daily life as a routine act, a normal procedure in the administration of an imperial government.

The United States has given signs that it will not turn back in the war that is being prepared. The procedures are gaining momentum and they do not intend to renounce to their war plans. But they know that by exploding the first bomb and ordering the entrance of their troops in Arab territory they are opening the "gates of Hell" and will pay a very expensive price in human lives. The battle of Baghdad, should it take place, will be costly to the United States.

The dominant circles in Washington firmly believe that the isolation of the US administration in the world will increase in case force is used without the authorisation of United Nations Security Council. That is the reason for the attempt at making Iraq give in without a fight – in fact to capitulate – and at building up a forced majority resulting from the use of blackmail, economic pressures and even military threats against countries that are members of the Council.

The "mother of bombs" will not change the stance of those who are willing to resist. It will not change the vote or the veto of those who are clearly against the war. The "mother of bombs" – either disposed of or put to use, either in Pentagon’s warehouses or exploding numerous tons and sowing destruction and death – is also a challenge. It challenges the peoples to wave the flag of peace, to fight against the imperialist war and to detain the murderous hand of imperialism. Lately, anti-Americanism is being used as a kind of reaction to crowds protesting against the American war and an attempt at silencing the dissonant voices in the adventurous course of Bush administration, people like former president Jimmy Carter and writer Norman Mailler. It would be better to mention the anti-imperialism that is growing all over the world, including in the watchful portion of the US people who takes part of the great front of the peoples saying no to Bush’s war.

------------------------------

(*) Journalist. Vice-president of Communist Party of Brazil – PCdoB, responsible for International relations

The article was first published on March 13, 2003.

Beware of Smoking Guns

Confronting Iraq: Might Doesn't Make Right

By Ian Urbina and Desmond Tutu March 14, 2003 *

People of faith belong on the side of peace. But it is more than just those of all religions who stand against an attack on Iraq. It is also those who put their trust in law.

The current moment confronts the world with a terrible decision: Will we stand by reason and law or act in force and aggression? There has never been a more important test of the values of average people around the globe. At stake is whether might makes right.

The United States is indeed a mighty country. But its real strength resides in its proud history of standing for what is just. In figures such as Martin Luther King, the world draws moral fortitude and an example of the effectiveness of non-violent struggle. With the grassroots boycotting efforts of everyday Americans, and the eventual diplomatic pressure of their government, South African apartheid was ended. The prison doors would still be shut around Nelson Mandela were it not for the help of the United States.

These traditions have spoken recently on the streets. Never has there been such a popular and peaceful outpouring of opposition, even before the act of war has taken place. This is truly the moral meaning of pre-emption.

There is no dishonour in the willingness to slow things down for the inspections to run their course. Few doubt that the United States has established a credible threat of force. Now the United Nations must be permitted to do its job. Disarmament is an absolute necessity. Nothing will undermine it more than a brazen disregard for the one institution which can actually achieve it.

It is not a vote against the war that threatens the United Nations with irrelevance. It is the unilateral cajoling by the sole remaining superpower which risks corrupting this otherwise democratic and international institution.

It is the inconsistent application of its resolutions, whereby some violators operate above the law, while others lack due process. It is the threat that money will dictate votes where only law and evidence should hold sway.

The question is not whether the United States has the ability to change the current heinous regime in Baghdad. It does. The question is whether it is worth the cost, not just in terms of the fate of diplomacy and law, but also in terms of the thousands of innocent victims which will result now and down the road in the repercussions to come.

President George W. Bush is a man of faith. We can only hope that he believes in law as well.

* Archbishop Desmond Tutu won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984. Ian Urbina is associate editor at the Middle East Research and Information Project.

"The United Nations is just an instrument at the service of American policy"

Former UN secretary general, Boutros Boutros Ghali*, was interviewed by Francesca de Châtel. Following is the text of the interview.

Monday March 17, 2003

What do you think of the current US foreign policy? The United States foreign policy has completely changed in the last 10 years. Since the arrival of Bush Sr there has been a fundamental shift in US foreign policy. The international community was not aware of the importance of this change; now, the young Bush and the people surrounding him represent a group of rightwing extremists. They are fundamentalists: Christian fundamentalists. Their policies are ideologically inspired: the United States believes it has a special message to the world. First they invented economic globalisation and now they want to globalise their philosophy in the same way. Like communism or socialism, you could call it "Americanism"; it is an ideology based on the liberation of the economy and the imposition of a democratic system. By spreading this around the world they hope to bring peace and security.

Since the attacks of September 11 Bush sees the world as divided between good and evil. They are going back to Reagan's rhetoric: he talked about the threat of communism, now Bush has replaced communism with terrorism. September 11 was not a military aggression - it is impossible to destroy the American military power - it was an ideological aggression.

Thus the Bush administration needed to come with an ideological response. But the change in foreign policy was not determined by 11 September alone: since the arrival of Bush there was an intention to do something about Iraq and address terrorism. September 11 only gave added strength to this resolve.

Multilateralism and unilateralism are just methods for the United States: they use them a la carte, as it suits them. The United Nations is just an instrument at the service of American policy. They will use it when they need to, through a multilateral approach and if they don't need it, they will act outside the framework of the United Nations. Of course with a military budget that is equivalent to that of all the permanent members of the security council together, they can afford to.

Is it not about power and a desire to dominate the oil resources of the Middle East?No. It may sound surprising, but I believe they already dominate the Middle East and its oil. If it was about gaining control over Iraqi oil, they could obtain it through much cheaper means, without spending many millions of dollars on a war in Iraq.

Is this new? Hasn't the United States always done as it pleased? Yes, to a certain extent it has, but before they still needed to seek the endorsement of the other superpower: the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War brought an end to the bipolar system and now the United States can act alone without the agreement of another superpower. It is in complete contradiction with the philosophy of the United Nations, which is based on multilateralism, and taking decisions by consensus. The current US philosophy is: "We don't need consensus; I decide."

Will the United Nations still have any value as an institution if the United States and Britain decide to bypass it and attack Iraq without a resolution?They went into Kosovo without a UN security council resolution and no one said anything... Look at it from the other side: could the security council condemn this illegal intervention? No, because the United States will use its veto right or pressurise other member states to vote against a condemnation, so that there is no majority vote.

America says this is a moment of truth for the United Nations?What they say is not important, what is important is that they will act on the basis of resolution 1441. Other members will demand a second resolution, but they will say that they have tried to get a majority vote for a second resolution and failed, and so they will act on resolution 1441. Second scenario - which is worse- is that a second resolution is refused by veto: France Russia and China veto the second resolution and the United States will attack unilaterally based on resolution 1441. That would be a slap in the face of the other members of the security council.

What value will the United Nations still have after that? If you are an optimist you will say this is not the first crisis within the United Nations in the last 55 years. The United Nations has in its history been able to overcome many more difficult crises: the blockade of Berlin, the aggression against Egypt in 1956, the war in Korea, the war in Vietnam... it survived all of these and continued to work. So this will be remembered as an accident, a sad accident, but six months later, everything will be back to normal. If you are a pessimist, you will say this is the beginning of the end of the United Nations, just like the League of Nations that disintegrated before the second world war.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist?It is hard to say what will happen. If it is a short war, with a clear victory, it will be easier for everybody to forget and say with hindsight that the US was right after all. On the other hand, if it is a long war with a lot of collateral damage, everyone will say it was to be foreseen and that it was a terrible mistake. The Americans will have to leave Iraq; the country will be devastated; and the United Nations will be asked to intervene but they will not have the capacity or the money - it will be the same mess as in Yugoslavia.

And what do you think will happen? I am not a specialist in military intervention. I don't know how the Iraqi army will react; will Saddam Hussein be betrayed by his own people? Or will he be able to count on solidarity from the population?

Do you believe a war is justified if UN inspectors find weapons of mass destruction? ... There are weapons of mass destruction in Israel, so why don't they start by disarming Israel? They have the atomic bomb, they never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so why not start there? It is deux poids et deux mesures [two weights and two measures]. This is inherent in the nature of the United Nations as a political institution: certain resolutions are adopted to be implemented and certain resolutions are passed and everybody knows they will never be implemented.

What do think of the idea of a pre-emptive strike in the context of international law? It is illegal. Undoubtedly. It is in contradiction to the whole spirit of the United Nations. And this is where the pessimists say: "This is the beginning of the end of the United Nations."

We have to be clear on this: if military action is authorised by the security council then even preventive intervention is legitimate. The security council has the monopoly over the use of military force, they can use the military force at their discretion and no one can judge them on this. However, a preventive war that is the product of a unilateral decision by a member state is illegal. Bypassing the security council is illegal. It has only happened once before, when the Israelis bombed an Iraqi atomic power station. This was a preventive, unilateral attack.

How much credibility will the United Nations still have if the United States decide to "go it alone"? I am for defending the United Nations because it is the only existing institution that can contribute to the democratisation of international institutions: poor countries, weak countries, small countries - they all need the United Nations because they have nothing else. Big countries have diplomacy and their own business network; they can handle their foreign policy without the United Nations.

So even if the United Nations failed on the question of Iraq, the institution would still have value? We don't know how member states will respond in future, whether the fact that an illegal preventative action has been carried out will encourage other countries to do the same thing. If this is considered an exception, then the United Nations will perhaps be able to continue to do its work.

What do you think will be the response in the Arab world? Again, if it is a quick war, and - even though I don't like this term - a "clean" war, then there will be no great reaction. There will still be huge hostility in the Arab world; big demonstrations, but in two or three weeks it will die down. But if through CNN, through BBC, we see blood, we see great damages, houses demolished, people killed, then there will be problems.

I don't know what will happen in the case of Iraq, but we do have a precedent which could help us to predict the degree of reaction, or the lack of it. In the last 12 months we have seen the horrible things done by Israelis in the occupied territories: demolishing houses, killing children - without any reaction. There is some protest, some demonstrations, but that's all. The Arab world is weak, it is powerless, and the United States supports Israel.

Do you believe this is a clash of civilisations? I don't believe in this. There may be an increase in terrorist actions - individual or by groups like al Qaida - but it is not a clash of civilisations. It will never be a mass movement.

How strong is the pan-Arab movement? Pan-Arabism is passing through a crisis: the Arabs are weak and divided... Before, in the bipolar system, they were able to play A against B and B against A. One of the reasons for the current weakness is that they have no backbone, no support: there is only one superpower and they can turn to no one for back-up. In the war between Egypt and Israel, where did the arms come from? From Russia. Today they can turn to no one but the United States; Europe is too weak to play a role. And America has the capacity to accentuate this division by according assistance to one and neglecting the other. The question of Israel only heightens the Arab weakness: the United States are so pro-Israel that the Arab world cannot have good relations with America.

How will the conflict in Israel be resolved? By 2010, 2015 there will be more Arabs than Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza. Already now, 20% of Israelis are Arabs; with time, this will be 30%, 40%, plus the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza. They will form a majority. It will be like the situation in South Africa in the 1980s, where a white minority ruled a black majority: in Israel, in 20 years a Jewish minority will be ruling an Arab majority.

What will this mean for Israel? The situation will change: on the long-term you cannot dominate with a minority. You can do it for two, three, maybe 10 years, but it cannot be maintained long-term. The Israelis will be weakened and they will have to concede power and change their attitude.

Why has the United Nations been incapable of stopping the spread of the AIDS epidemic in Africa? The international community is indifferent. The world is divided in haves and have-nots; rich and poor. Thus there are also "rich wars", and "poor wars". By "rich" I do not mean "rich in money"; "rich" in the sense that you have the attention of the world community. Everybody wants to help you, you have mediators, you have money, you have Blue Helmets. The wars that occur in the north receive this kind of attention.

But the wars in Africa are the wars of the poor. No one cares about these wars. Look at the war that has been raging in the Sudan for the last 20 years: no one cares. The war in Somalia also continues, but when the Americans and Europeans left there in 1993-94, it was forgotten. And yet they are still killing each other in Somalia, and Mogadishu is split in three, but no one cares. These are "orphan wars", and AIDS is part of this.

How effective is the United Nations as an institution if it cannot mediate this situation? The United Nations is the association of member states. If member states are not interested, nothing happens. In my time as secretary-general of the UN, I once asked for $5m for Liberia. I didn't obtain the money, at the same time [the UN] were spending $5m a day in Yugoslavia.

· Boutros Boutros Ghali (81), was the first Arab secretary-general of the United Nations from 1992 to 1996. Before his period at the UN, Mr Boutros Ghali was minister of foreign affairs in Egypt from 1977 to 1991. Today he lives in Paris, where he holds an honorary title on the board of the Association Mondiale de la Francophonie.

The People Will Not Accept Aggression and War An Anti-War Government Is The Goal

The People Will Not Accept Aggression and War An Anti-War Government Is The Goal

Iraq: Commons Motion

Voting on the Commons Motion

List of Labour Government Resignations

Robin Cook's Resignation Speech

"Stop The War And Bring The Troops Home"

March and Rally in Newcastle – Don't Attack Iraq!

The "Mother Of All Bombs" – A New Challenge

Beware of Smoking Guns

Confronting Iraq: Might Doesn't Make Right

"The United Nations is just an instrument at the service of American policy"

The People Will Not Accept Aggression and War
An Anti-War Government Is The Goal

The People Will Not Accept Aggression and War
An Anti-War Government Is The Goal