In his speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington on February 26, US President George W. Bush was painting a picture of "beer and skittles" after Saddam is out of the picture.

He said the United States will provide security for the Iraqi people, protect the country's oil supplies from being sabotaged and use the proceeds from resumed oil exports to rebuild that nation.

In Bush's words, ousting Saddam will not only rid the world of a tyrant harboring weapons of mass destruction, but also help the cause of peace in the Middle East.

His words are clear, even as United Nations (UN) members still are divided on how to settle the Iraqi issue -- the United States has considered it to be a foregone conclusion.

It is the ramification of Saddam's fall that is now at the centre of the Bush administration's thinking.

Bush's vision to bring democracy to Iraq is not valid. Nor is his commitment to the country and its people.

The logic that a war against a sovereign nation without UN approval can bring democracy to the Arab world lays the United States open to ridicule.

As the Bush administration prepares for "regime change" in Iraq, an obvious question is being asked with increasing urgency: What does it intend to change the regime into?

Under the current US plan, a US governor would run Iraq for months or years, along the lines of those imposed in post-World War II Germany and Japan.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell confirmed the plan in October.

The US "colonization" plan has had cold water poured on it even among Iraq's so-called opposition groups.

In an interview with ABC, Ahmad Chalabi, chairman of the Iraqi National Council, warned the US plans to run a post-Saddam Iraq would be a recipe for disaster. "Any plan for extended US ... direct rule in Iraq is unworkable and that would not gain the moral high ground among Iraqis," Chalabi was quoted as saying. "It is unworkable because the US administrators will have very little knowledge of Iraqi society."

Rebuilding Iraq has long been under deliberation in the United States.

On January 20, Bush directed all relevant agencies of the government to focus their attention on Iraq's post-war planning.

Several hearings on reconstruction of post-Saddam Iraq were held in the US Senate.

In a testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 11, Political Affairs Under-Secretary Marc Grossman interpreted Bush's direction: "If it becomes necessary for a US-led military coalition to liberate Iraq, the US will want to be in a position to help meet the humanitarian, reconstruction and administrative challenges facing the country in the immediate aftermath of combat operations."

Earlier in December, Richard Haass, who directs the policy planning staff in the US State Department, declared that his country will increasingly support democratic trends in the Muslim world.

The reason for his emphasis on democracy is an allegedly growing gulf between many Muslim regimes and their citizens.

In the eyes of scores of American scholars and politicians, the Middle East is a place that is in dire need of reform.

Journalist Fareed Zakaria noted in a Newsweek article that the Arab world does not have a single full-fledged democracy among its 22 countries.

He wrote that only 25 percent of the Muslim world is democratic, compared with more than 50 percent of the rest of the world.

Bush's address at the American Enterprise Institute is the latest demonstration of the United States' promotion of democracy.

"The fall of Saddam is to provide momentum for democracy and peace in the Middle East," Bush said.

But is it legally justified to democratize Iraq by force? And can Iraq unleash a democratic tsunami across the Arab world?

It is doubtful the United States can win the hearts of Arabian countries if it imposes an "approved" version of Islam on the Islamic world. The Muslim world is entitled to come to grips with its issues and find its own way out of political and economic problems.

All in all, if there should be a proposal for the reconstruction of Iraq, it should come from the UN rather than a single nation.

And it is against international law to impose a political system in the name of democracy on other nations.

The US is not promoting democracy because of a sudden burst of altruism, but because of its old sense of self-interest -- fostering sympathetic authorities in the Middle East, testing US new weapons of mass destruction and controlling oil reserves.

All in all, the whole thing is about "full spectrum dominance" -- a term coined by the United States itself.

The unilateral threat of force from the United States is arousing global criticism and untold potential violence, with implications far beyond the present situation, and it is putting the whole world at risk.

There is very little patience now among war planners in Washington to be concerned about the damage a war will do to the Iraqi people.

The idea that the United States is going to launch a war against Iraq for humanitarian reasons is absurd. Going to war in the region would be more against human rights.

In the Gulf War, some 150,000 Iraqi civilians were killed.

One can only guess how many will die if another war is launched.

This contradicts the reason to liberate the Iraqis by guided missiles.

Ruud Lubbers, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, said in Athens in February that the results of a possible war in Iraq could be catastrophic for its people and trigger a massive refugee wave.

The Centre for Economic and Social Rights warns that a war against Iraq could trigger "a humanitarian emergency of exceptional scale and magnitude."

It would be a happy-to-all scenario that the world could be cleared entirely of weapons of mass destruction.

The UN arms inspection in Iraq is under way.

What is required for the inspectors is a continued disarmament process, which is a step in the right direction.

(China Daily March 11, 2003)