Saddam's death wish
Why did Saddam Hussein opt for national suicide? He did not have a ghost of a chance against the might of the Coalition Forces and yet he made no effort to stop the war

WHERE are the chemical weapons? Where are the biological and nuclear weapons? Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)?
In a last ditch struggle, Saddam Hussein could have used them. Even when faced with defeat and death, he did not use them. Why?
Because he just does not have any WMD.
The United States could not have been unaware of this. It knew all along that he did not possess even 1/1,000th of the WMD which it itself had.
It just sat back and waited as the UN inspectors went about their task in Iraq.
They did not find any chemical or biological weapons.
The US calmly said that Saddam Hussein has to be disarmed. If he had all those powerful, deadly weapons, the defence of Iraq could not have collapsed like a pack of cards. The US, however, insisted he had those deadly arms and finally moved in.
The inspection for arms carried out in Iraq was a farce.
The US has other reasons for toppling the Saddam Hussein regime.
The reasons are hidden - we will know exactly what they are in the next few weeks, months.
The US invasion also was not prompted by any initiative to liberate the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq have not been asking for liberation.

Internal affairs

According to the United Nations charter, no country can intervene in the internal affairs of another country. Even the UN cannot do it. What system of government a country adopts is its own business - not the business of any other country. There is no freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia.

Will the US ever interfere in the affairs of Saudi Arabia and liberate the people? Military dictator after military dictator have ruled Pakistan. Even now the army has a strangehold on the people of Pakistan. The so-called democracy in Pakistan is farcical. Will the US ask Mr. Musharraf to step down?

Instead of bothering about getting freedom for the people of Pakistan, the US is giving it more Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). It is writing off billion dollar loan and removing all sanctions.

We can speculate only the US invaded Iraq and tried to murder Saddam Hussein. There must be a strong motive. It is billion and billions barrels of precious oil. In the early 19th century, the British were engaged in fighting in West Asia all the time. It was able to grab the oil resources of the desert region.

It is oil that is making developed countries take an interest in the desert countries. The US can take over the oil wells now. Would it be legal to do so? Legal? What the US does is never illegal. Whatever it does, becomes legal. The US always follows a solid, realistic policy and its first concern is its own national interests. It cares a damn whether the people of Iraq are free or not. It is not evidently keen about giving excuse for any action which is necessary for its survival.

What I cannot understand is the mindset of Mr. Saddam Hussein. He could not have been unaware he did not have a ghost of a chance against the might of America. Giant warships with hundreds of planes and missiles were at sea all set to strike. A massive army of 2-1/2 lakh with huge, impregnable tanks were in Kuwait. Baghdad could not do anything against air attacks - it had no ground defence at all. Defeat in the circumstances were certain.

Death Wish: There is no other way of explaining Saddam's response to US threat. He could have survived, the Iraqi people could have survived. Any leader should ensure national survival. He should have made peace with the United States. Evidently, he has a suicidal tendency. That is quite pathetic. A leader with a pronounced suicidal tendency cannot ensure the safety of people.

What next? Having conquered Iraq, will the US stop or look for other victims? Already it has branded three nations - Iran, Syria and North Korea - as evil. Several charges have been levelled against them, one of them being terrorism. They are said to be promoting terrorism, funding Al-Qaeda terrorists, producing nuclear weapons etc. There is no stopping the world leader now.

On the very day, American troops stormed into Baghdad and Saddam's defeat became certain, there were furious speeches in Parliament condemning the United States' action in Iraq. Members belonging to all parties became emotional and eloquent as they condemned the US. One thing is certain: Indian businessmen are not going to get any contract in respect of Iraqi reconstruction. Fiery speeches in Parliament has scotched all chances in this regard. Besides, our neighbour will get better treatment from the US as it has sided with the US in its war against Iraq.

We have to recognise existing actualities. Today, the US has become a supreme power. It does not recognise the United Nations writ.

The balance of power is tilted dangerously in favour of the US. Statesmen of yesteryear were always playing the international game - balance of power - and saw to it that not any single power or group of powers got exclusive global control.

We have to play that game now. When the Soviet Union was pitted against the US, there was quite a good balance of power. The smaller nations could join one block or the other. And Nasser, Nehru and Tito initiated the third group and helped to a considerable extent achieve balance of power. Then the United Nations had relevance and the US would not have dared to do what it has done in Iraq.

Balance of power

Unless we work for this balance and until we achieve it, we have no go but to kowtow to the US, accept it as the world leader and go along with it. The folks in the establishment are not bad guys - one can gainfully go along with them. Russia, China - two giant states want to be in the good books of the US. Maybe France and Germany who fell out with the US over the Iraqi war may work towards achieving a balance of power. Maybe they can make a new group to counter the total supremacy of the US.

That nations do not want to antagonise the US can be seen from the fact that even Muslim Arab countries did not make any effort to call a meeting of the General Assembly to discuss the war. The Arab league announced, after the fall of Baghdad, after it was all over, that it has decided not to call such a meeting.

Nobody wants to do it. Maybe France which believes in liberty intensely may take steps to organise a friendly, competitive, peaceful front against the US.

Until this happens, let us maintain some diplomatic discreet silence and unnecessarily invite trouble. We have no go but to accept the world reality as it is today.