Editorial: Show us the proof, Mr Bush

The United States generally pays little heed to what non-Americans say. As a superpower can, it pursues its own ambitions in the expectation that doubters will eventually see the wisdom of its ways and fall into line. So it is that Donald Rumsfeld can blithely declare that the international community would back an American invasion of Iraq.

True, it "might seem lonesome" right at this moment, the Secretary of Defence concedes. No matter. "When our country does make the right judgments, the right decisions, then other countries do co-operate and participate." It is a sentiment hardly designed to allay fears that President George W. Bush has made up his mind to attack Iraq.

Mr Rumsfeld's theory is based on an assumption that invading Iraq is the right decision. Earlier this week, we had Vice-President Dick Cheney's assurance on that. "The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system and the demonstrated hostility of Saddam Hussein combine to produce an imperative for pre-emptive action," he said. Wait any longer, Mr Cheney said, and Saddam would become emboldened and it would become even harder to gather allies to oppose him.

That argument falls down in one crucial area. For all we know, the US is tilting at windmills. It has supplied no evidence that Saddam has acquired, or is acquiring, weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations resolutions imposed after the Gulf War. For all its sophisticated surveillance equipment, the US has not furnished proof that Saddam is an imminent threat.

He is, as Mr Cheney says, "evil, power-hungry and a menace". But there is no evidence that he poses a mortal danger. If such proof were supplied, traditional European and Arab allies, most of whom are strongly opposed to military action, would change their tune.

In the absence of such proof, the motives of the Bush Administration must be questioned. Does the President see this as unfinished business, a legacy of his father's failure to unseat Saddam at the time of the Gulf War? Or, probably more pertinently, is Saddam a convenient scapegoat, given the failure of US troops to account for Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network?

American officials have hinted that even allowing the resumption of United Nations inspection of Iraq's weapons capability would not save Saddam. He must pay the price for being included in Mr Bush's "axis of evil" for supporting terrorism. The toppling of Saddam would represent a concrete achievement of the President's meandering war against terrorism. Again, however, the US has supplied no evidence to link Saddam directly to al Qaeda or other terrorist organisations.

The case against invading Iraq does not stop there. The doubters also worry that the US has not thought sufficiently about what would follow the demise of Saddam. Inevitably, the Middle East would be destabilised. Iraq would be torn apart as its Kurdish and Shi'ite minorities sought independence. This would have unwanted implications for neighbouring countries such as Turkey.

On a wider canvas, anti-American sentiment, already high because of US support for Israel, might escalate as far as to threaten the existence of some Arab governments. That fear underpins the opposition of the likes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt to an American strike.

Washington's posturing has not attracted the desired response. Now it must produce evidence to back its rhetoric. Until that is available, the US should, for once, listen to what others say - and recognise the judiciousness of their argument.


Feature: Iraq

Iraq links and resources