UN authority allows of no challenge

Zheng Qirong (professor with Foreign Affairs Institute):

The United States has launched military actions against Iraq in disregard of strong opposition from most countries of the international community and bypassing the Security Council of the United Nations. This act of the United States violates the United Nations Charter and the basic norms of international law, constituting serious harms to the United Nations.

It is known to all that the United Nations is the most universal and most authoritative inter-governmental international organization that covers almost all sovereign states of today's world. Fifty-eight years ago, leaders of the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, China and other anti-fascist allied countries, who had experienced the tragedy of two world wars, particularly World War II, represented the general aspirations of the people of various countries for peace and development, jointly established the United Nations.

In order to prevent the re-emergence of war between countries, the UN Charter lists the defense of international peace and security as its own primary purpose, lays down various detailed measures for safeguarding international peace and security, requiring that the member states, on the basis of equal sovereign rights, promise not to use force or threat of the use of force in international relations and should solve international disputes by peaceful means; the UN Charter also authorizes the Security Council to undertake major responsibilities in this regard. Although the authority of the United Nations has been challenged by certain big powers and big-power groups since its establishment, it is undeniable that the United Nations has, over the past 58 years, made indelible contributions to advancing world peace and development, maintaining international security and stability and promoting human civilization and progress, the special responsibilities borne by the UN and its Security Council and its leading position in safeguarding international peace and security are irreplaceable by any other agency. Most countries in the world stand for mutual cooperation and solving differences and conflicts between member states within the framework of the United Nations. This time the US government arbitrarily launched military attacks on Iraq in disregard of the voice of various countries for peace and unilaterally casting aside the United Nations, this act is, without doubt, a contempt for and challenge to the authority of the United Nations and has set a bad precedent. This cannot but have aroused the worries of all peace-loving countries and peoples. History has proved that the world still needs the United Nations, and the authority of the United Nations admits of no challenge. This is both the aspiration and voice of the majority of the international community and the demand for democratization in international relations.

Fresh development of unilateralism

Luan Zongze (deputy director of the China Institute for International Studies):

Unilateralism has been running wild since the US Bush administration took office. This is manifested mainly in the fact that it places the American interests above the interests of the international community. The Bush administration, taking a pragmatist stand, conducts reevaluation of international treaties and mechanisms, it retains and even intensifies what is beneficial and abolishes what is disadvantageous to the United States. For example, the United States withdrew from the ABM (Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty), refused to approve the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol on controlling atmospheric pollution and opposed the establishment of an international criminal court, etc. After the "September 11" incident, the United States worked hard to pursue absolute security and military superiority. Now, the United States uses force against Iraq in disregard of the opposition of most countries of the international community and in circumvention of the United Nations, this is the new development and new manifestation of US unilateralism.

On the one hand, the unbalance of international forces is the international background that generates US unilateralism; on the other hand, the "9.11" terrorist attacks caused US domestic politics to turn abruptly to the right, while the conservative force raising its head is the domestic political foundation for its birth. US policy-makers deem it necessary to seize the very rare opportunity offered by the "9.11" incident to push through the American global strategy by making use of the advantage of US strength and through unilateralism or pre-emptive strikes. Unilateralism has a clear offensive and adventurist nature, it exerts serious impacts on normal international relations and adds new uncertainties to the development of the future international situation. Therefore, it unavoidably meets with the universal opposition from the international community including US European allies. This has been fully expressed in the diplomatic struggle carried out in the United Nations over the Iraq issue.

Future of the Middle East region unforeseeable

Yang Guang (director of the West-Asia and Africa Institute under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences):

The Iraq War will possibly lead to the expansion of US influence in the Middle East region and will bring many problems to the stability and development of local countries.

The US government plans, after occupying Iraq, to station its troops in Iraq and carry out political reconstruction of the country in accordance with a Western mode in the hope of establishing a pro-US political model in the Middle East region.

However, political reconstruction is no easy thing because Iraq's ethnic and religious questions are complicated, political factions are in great numbers and the sentiment of nationalism is strong, Whether Iraq can realize long-term stability or not is a question of concerns to the people.

The US intention to push through the Western values and political systems in the Middle East region is bound to cause contradictions with those countries whose cultural backdrops and political systems are categorically different from those of the West and will stimulate the generation and development of extremist forces. In the face of the American mighty strength, countries in the region may, on the basis of their national interests, adopt realistic foreign policies and appropriately adjust their relations with the United States, but the anti-US sentiment of the people in this region can hardly be therefore mitigated.

With a view to keeping its existence in the Middle East region and easing its contradictions with Arab countries, the United States will have to renew its efforts to expedite the Palestinian-Israeli peace process after the Iraq War, but people can hardly expect it to change its principle of being partial to Israel, Palestine will possibly be in a more disadvantageous position in future peace negotiation.

In a bid to control Iraq which abounds in oil reserves and has tremendous oil recovery potential, the United States will further strengthen its control force over international oil supply, enhance its strategic advantage over international competitors and will pave the way for American oil consortia to return to the Middle East region. Iraq is a founding member of the OPEC. US controls of Iraqi oil will weaken the control force of the international cartel market with the Mid-east oil exporters as the mainstay.

Profound influence on the international pattern

Yuan Peng (deputy head of America Office of the China Modern International Relations Institute):

The Iraq War's influence on the international pattern is manifested in the following:

Firstly, the foundation of US tough foreign strategic force has not been shaken, it is impossible for the United States to influence the whole world in the future, but it will still be the main force affecting the international pattern.

Secondly, the "multiple powers", postwar France, Germany, Russia and China, reached unanimity for the first time to jointly contain US unilateralism and have actually restricted the acts of the United States, but judged from the diplomatic reaction of various countries after the start of the war, they seem to still lack effective methods for coping with the war acts of the United States which insists on going its own way. Multi-polarization has achieved fresh, substantive development on the one hand, while on the other hand, there still exists a long-term stalemated process in the trial of strength with mono-polarization.

Thirdly, from the Gulf War to the Iraq War, many new characters have derived from the international political stage, they have gradually "reached the hall and entered the chamber", playing a noticeable role on the international political stage. The anti-economic globalization, anti-terrorism, antiwar movement organizations and religious groups and other forces will play roles together with the forces of traditional big countries in the future international pattern. The future international pattern will be far from an arena of rivalry among big powers, but rather it will be a stage for joint performances by various characters.

Finally, the "9.11" incident and the war to "topple Saddam" prominently show the simultaneous existence and the mutual role of the two pairs of contradictions: first is the contradictions between terrorism and anti-terrorism, second is the contradictions between seeking hegemony and combating hegemony. The first pair of contradictions enable the situation of big powers' coordination and cooperation to develop rapidly; and the latter pair of contradictions cause the big powers' contradictions and conflicts to deepen noticeably, thereby presenting a situation featuring the simultaneous intensification of cooperation and competition among various principal forces.

(People's Daily March 26, 2003)