Invasions over roundtables, a cynical dilemma at Iraq

Secretary General's Ad Hoc

The United States-led coalition has viciously launched an incursion into Iraqi territory, claiming to quell the barbarity perpetrated by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Saddam Hussein, a ruler, was accused of brutality and religious fanaticism. But, most importantly, global terrorism has been subject to scrutiny by the pro-liberation faction of the west, who are apprehensive of his supposed access to weapons of mass destruction. The coalition, armoured by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Poland, sought the ousting of the leader to reinstate peace in Iraq and the world, hence justifying the invasion of Iraq. While the invading coalition claims that their actions are in the best interest of the Iraqis, countries like France, Iran, Germany and Russia, taking into consideration the paramount destruction which shall ensue if the invasion is carried out - feel very strongly about the hegemonic tendencies of America. Civilians were killed, and lives stagnated for a cause not justified, as inspections conducted by the UNSC have continually yielded results in favour of Iraq. The primary question raised by the countries against the coalition was, “Why resort to war instead of hitting the negotiation table and reaching a diplomatic solution?” Sergei Lebedev, a representative of the resentful factions, stated that this was in essence “bullying” by powerful nations wanting to “assert their global dominance.” Uday Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein, expressed their deep anger toward Iraq’s illegal invasion and pleaded while simultaneously threatening the aggressors to “get out of their country.” Besides the primary stakeholders, Russia and Iran expressed support for Uday Hussein, the incumbent Prime Minister of Iraq, with the death of Saddam Hussein occurring while the session was in progress. Saddam was now dead, and every house member was looked upon with suspicion. With the blame game in full swing, it was only after a while that Tony Blair and the United Kingdom took responsibility for the assassination– saying it was in the ‘interests of international peace.’ With confidence profuse, the Irani Prime Minister vehemently expressed that failure to comply with the withdrawal of troops from Iraq would bring an invasion by Iran into the US and UK, countries in front of which their military power is meagre. It is also ironic to note the wholehearted support that Iran gives to the very country they had been at war with for the past two decades and have had continual religious tensions between the Shias and Sunnis. Atal Bihari Vajpayee also stated that India would retaliate against the coalition if the invasion weren’t called off, an ignorant breach of their ‘no first use’ policy of 1999. It came as an alarming shock to the Russian Federation when the chief of the FSB, Sergei Lebedev, was found dead. While Katrina Popowich replaced him, he had already managed to bring Denmark and Saudi Arabia around his stance in favour of Iraq. The success of the coalition depends on the unity between the combining forces. The present relations between the US and UK, with each of them plotting against one another, pose bleak prospects towards attaining their motive. The ties were severed to such an extent that the UK was ready to ally with Osama Bin Laden to carry out attacks against the United States. While the countries stab each other in their backs, the world is doomed by the onslaught of a contagious pathogen. The invading forces have been forced to retreat, and the situation seems to have reached a standstill. With Iraq being subject to major crises, actions taken over the next few days shall determine the fate of its innocent citizens. Thus, invasions or roundtables? – truly a predicament!