In the eyes of the writer, the present major question is no longer one of when the war will be started, what method will be adopted and what the final result will be, but rather it is the seriousness of the war and its profound influence on the international relations in the new century.

I. The diffusion of the "9.11 syndrome"; the reversion of the international anti-terrorist struggle and the abuse of power by the superpower

The US government wishes to describe its effort to attack Iraq and "topple Saddam" as a new development of the international counter-terrorism struggle following the Afghanistan War. The plea for the war to be launched under the excuse of stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction appears to be not convincing due to the double standards used in the US foreign policy and the buildup of its own astonishing sophisticated arsenal.

The United States is exhausting bit by bit the certain kind of moral superiority it once gained after the "9.11" incident. Many countries which once showed deep sympathy for the United States have become increasingly doubtful about the new theories, such as the theory of the "axis of evils" and the "pre-emptive strike strategy" of the White House and the Pentagon. The international anti-terrorist struggle is gradually undergoing a qualitative change under the guidance of the United States and the international counter-terrorism alliance is faced with the prospect of a split-up.

The American unilateral and obstinate attacking posture, far from being able to eliminate anti-US sentiments in numerous areas, has caused much negative imagination in the world's people about international politics. The syndrome of the "9.11" incident continues to diffuse, the United States is deeply bogged down there, unable to extricate itself. On the other hand, the United States tries its utmost to achieve any target it has set without consideration of the interests of other countries and the demand of the international community, so as to place itself above the majority of countries.

As the Iraqi crisis is presently deepening, around which the parties concerned have started a new round of interactions, in fact, this most clearly refracts in one aspect the arrogance, despotic air and profound influence of the sole superpower in today's world. It signifies the danger of the imbalance of international strategies and the urgency of democratization of international relations, absolute power leads to the abuse of power-an iron law revealed by political science, it is applicable not only to domestic politics, but also to international politics.

II. The direct cause of crisis: contending for oil resources, controlling geographical hub and guarding against "civilized conflicts"

No matter how the parties involved explain the origin of the Iraqi crisis, three major factors actually determine the process and final result of the crisis: First, scrambling for oil resources. The Gulf region where Iraq is located is the globe's main petroleum producer, Iraq itself possesses the world's second largest oil reserves; developed countries heavily depend on the oil of this region, one-third of the oil of the United States alone are imported from this region and the proportion is still rising. A regime cherishing hostility and controlling one of the main petroleum valves of Western countries-this status quo is intolerable to the United States.

Second, controlling the geographical hub. It can be clearly seen in the world map that the Gulf, the Middle East and the entire West Asia hold the juncture of the three continents of Asia, Europe and Africa, a number of sea, air and land passageways pass through here, it belongs to the world's geographical key post and strategic commanding height. Just like the former Yugoslavia regarded as a stumbling block to NATO's eastward enlargement in the age of Slobodan Milosevic, Saddem's Iraq is now seen as a thorn in the flesh for the United States to control this geographical hub.

Third, guarding against what is called "civilized conflict" by Huntington. In the eyes of some Westerners with narrow-minded prejudice of ideology and culture, international conflicts in post-Cold War epoch may possibly be caused by the discrepancy between different races and civilizations, therefore it is necessary to prepare against rainy days and prevent trouble before it happens. It is thus clear that changing the Iraqi political power by force has the effect of "killing one to warn a hundred", actually it is also a warning to all Islamic countries which have the sentiments of the so-called "fundamentalism".

III. Deep-seated crux: the internal links of Iraq and the Mid-east issues

The Iraqi crisis is not an isolated situation, it involves absolutely not only the kindness and hatred among a few countries. Besides the hints mentioned above, people should not neglect the deep links between this crisis and the long-existing Middle East issue. Before the Mid-east peace process gains substantive advancement, before the rights to subsistence and development for Israel and Palestine are truly guaranteed, it is impossible to completely eliminate the resentment of the Arab world and the global Muslim people against the United States.

Solving the Iraq issue by force and at the same time avoiding the emergence of large-scale, chain-like anti-US and anti-Israeli terrorist activities-this is the biggest difficult question presently facing the United States in its foreign policy and a long-term challenge which the United States will have to cope with; as long as the Mid-east issue is not solved in a comprehensive and just way, the Iraqi crisis cannot be handled at a low cost, the resistance to and conflicts with the superpower in various parts of the globe (especially in the countries and regions where Muslims are located) will not be reduced.

Military success is relatively easy, whereas the elimination of the crux of the Middle East is not so simple. In a sense, the Iraqi crisis is only an indicator of the complicated international relations, and is one of the disordered phenomena caused by the US-guided international order.

IV. Emergence of the "anti-war axis": the beginning of a new round of interactions in big-power relations

What is interesting is that the new trend emerged in the present big-power relations around the Iraqi crisis. On the one hand, from the attitudes of response taken by Britain, Australia, Spain as well as some Central and East European countries, the people of the world can see the absolute military strength of the United States and the existence of a certain kind of its "appeal";

On the other hand, the emergence of the indistinct new anti-war axis (including mainly Germany and France, and, to some extent, Russia and other countries), as well as the serious differences emerged in NATO over the question of so-called "guaranteeing Turkey's rights and interests:", which reflects the symptom worth attention to and pursuit of the big-power relations in the new age.

In the eyes of the writer, such differences emerged on the Iraqi crisis naturally first belong to the conflicts of interest among different countries and the difference in their strategic choice. But from here one can see the discrepancy of cultural background, the difference of social history and the various understandings of the international order.

It goes without saying that the vastly different national interests (especially economic benefits) are always the primary consideration of various countries in their different choices, but we must not therefore neglect other divergences which seem to be playing a limited role while actually have far-reaching significance.

Considering the special roles played by big powers in international politics, we can say that multi-level, and changeable cooperation and friction constitute the more diverse, multi-polar global politics in the new period. The handling of the Iraqi crisis will likely be the beginning of a new round of changes in international relations.

V. The UN role and the future international relations

The deepening of the Iraqi crisis gives an extremely profound revelation of the special contradiction and perplexity of the UN system; on the one hand, most countries in the world are still willing to regard this largest international organization's formal resolutions as a scale for judging the legality of warfare, it seems that the United Nations has never been so valued and given moral authority as it has today, in the fields of international politics and security, its certain new missions (such as punishment of certain countries' past absurd actions, the inspection of weapons of mass destruction, and the criticism of undemocratic practice and violation of human rights) are so many as amounting to an unbearable extent.

On the other hand, the United Nations is still regarded as something furnished by individual countries, that may or may not be needed, or at most as some adornment for the legality of moral war, the energetic involvement of the UN Secretary-general, the opposition of certain big powers, as well as the anti-war movements launched in various parts of the world prove impossible to stop the superpower from driving the chariot, nor is it possible to prevent a handful of countries from "establishing separate factions".

History and reality have proved that the UN's role is indispensable, as well as limited from beginning to end, it is only a kind of real expression of the world order which leaves much to be desired and which remains to be remade.

It is the view of the writer that despite the existence of deletion of whatever kind, respecting the interests of sovereign states and other countries, and on this basis, solving differences between countries through consultations on an equal footing (including authorized and limited international intervention) remains the foundation stone of international relations upon which the present epoch relies, it is of important significance in preserving international peace at the present stage, in fact, it is also the necessity for the existence of the United Nations.

Contrary to the saying of certain Western media, "State sovereignty" is not a vanishing history, but is an existence filled with bitterness and unable to be discarded. In the long run, the principal task for the United Nations is to face up to and properly handle this fundamental reality of international relationship.

(Poeple's Daily February 22, 2003)