Jose Ramos-Horta on Iraq

Jose Ramos-Horta, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996 and East Timor's senior minister for foreign affairs, writes in tomorrow's Australian:

The new Socialist Government in Spain has caved to the terrorist threats and withdrawn its troops from Iraq. So have Honduras and the Dominican Republic.

They are unlikely to be the last. With the security situation expected to worsen before it improves, we have to accept that a few more countries - who do not appreciate how much the world has at stake in building a free Iraq - will also cut and run. No matter how the retreating governments try to spin it, every time a country pulls out of Iraq it is al-Qa'ida and other extremists who win. They draw the conclusion that the coalition of the willing is weak and that the more terrorist outrages, the more countries will withdraw.

As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonise over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That's why I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without UN or international approval - and in both cases they were right to do so.

Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without UN approval. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean-Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism.

Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened - without a UN mandate - to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the US-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes.

So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten, too, is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbours lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.

Saddam's overthrow offers a chance to build a new Iraq that is peaceful, tolerant and prosperous. That's why the stakes are so high, and why extremists from across the Muslim world are fighting to prevent it. They know that a free Iraq would fatally undermine their goal of purging all Western influence from the Muslim world, overthrowing the secular regimes in the region, and imposing Stone Age rule.

If we look beyond the TV coverage, there is hope that Washington's vision of transforming Iraq might still be realised.

Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There is unhindered internet access. NGOs covering everything from human rights to women's advocacy have emerged. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom for the first time in its history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear.
.....
The US also needs to repair the damage done by the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. While it's important to remember that those involved only represent a tiny fraction of US service personnel in Iraq, the fact remains that the abuse was allowed to continue for many months after organisations such as the normally secretive Red Cross sounded alarm bells. Only thorough investigation, including action against those responsible, can US standing in Iraq be restored.

Now is the time for Washington to show leadership by ensuring that the UN plays the central role in building a new Iraq. As an East Timorese, I am well aware of the international body's limits, having seen first-hand its impotence in the face of Indonesia's invasion of my country in 1975.

The UN is the sum of our qualities and weaknesses, our selfish national interests and personal vanities. For all its shortcomings, it is the only international organisation we all feel part of; it should be cherished rather than further weakened. While the US will continue to play a critical role in ensuring security in Iraq, a UN-led peacekeeping force would enable many Arab and Muslim nations to join in and help isolate the extremists.

In almost 30 years of political life, I have supported the use of force on several occasions and sometimes wonder whether I am a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Certainly I am not in the same category as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. But Mandela, too, recognised the need to resort to violence in the struggle against white oppression. The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost 1 million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behaviour of religious fanatics.

Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.

(Hat tip: Jim Nolan.)