ISLAMABAD - The unprecedented diversity of Saturday's worldwide protests against any war o­n Iraq is symptomatic of a growing realisation that the United States is apparently determined to go to war while the rest of the world --or at least international opinion -- is determined to resist the war option with equal vehemence.

The protests, in up to 60 countries around the world, are unique in that they have begun even before a war is underway. This probably makes the upcoming conflict with Iraq the most unpopular war in modern history.

What is even more significant is that the West is seeing its most serious split since 1966, when French President Charles de Gaulle chose to opt out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's military wing and part company with the United States and European alliance partners, to forge detente with the Soviet Union.

Iraq has already contributed partly or substantially in influencing election results in such diverse countries as Germany, Turkey and South Korea, spawning anti-US sentiment and strengthening political parties critical of Washington's worldview.

In the Muslim world, they have spawned a series of conspiracy theories linking US policy to oil (occupation of a country that has 12 percent of the world's oil reserves), Israel (supporting political and military hegemony of the Middle East's o­nly nuclear weapon power), and an attempt to reshape the political map of the region (through 'regime change' or policy change).

Popular sentiment

The protests, from Tokyo down to tiny Fiji or in Australia - while its prime minister, John Howard - was in Washington to express solidarity with US President George W Bush in the White House, reflect a growing popular sentiment reflecting three realities.

Instead of the much talked about 'clash of civilisations' between the West and the Muslim world in the aftermath of Sept 11, 2001, the world is witnessing a new fault line that was unthinkable just a few months ago -the clash within the West between an aggressive assertion of US might and a vocal assertion of European solidarity.

At stake are not just the claims to future oil royalties in a post-Saddam Iraq, but the very shape of world order: whether it will be fashioned entirely by the United States - the 'new Rome' - in its imperial over-reach, or by the rule of law and the UN charter with the support of European powers, China, Russia and sections of the Muslim world.

The language used by detractors is reminiscent of the harsh conflicts in the Cold War between ideological adversaries in Washington and Moscow.

This time, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has likened Germany to US arch-enemy Cuba, there have been calls in the mainstream US media to strip France of its veto in the U.N. Security Council and denunciations of European 'ingratitude' by right-wing Republicans in the United States.

Balloon punctured

Even Nato is no longer the US handmaiden it was presumed to be in a world where what Washington said, usually goes. The European anti-war troika - Germany, France and Belgium - have punctured the balloon of a monolithic West that was flying high after Sept 11.

Another significant transformation is that the emotional outbursts of anti-US views in random rallies have now given way to institutional resistance to the US policy o­n Iraq. Containing manifestations of US military might within the contours of a United Nations or Nato is not something the Bush administration had bargained for.

Three kinds of signals emanate from these developments.

First, this 'clash within the west' has clearly replaced the 'clash ofcivilisations'.

As the dominant faultline in the US-led war o­n terror, this clash within has presented the United States with its most serious political and diplomatic challenge since the Cold War ended in 1991, with the collapse of communism and break-up of the Soviet Union.

As a consequence of this, the future of Nato and the role of the United Nations have both been brought into question as a consequence.

Second, these developments are indicative of growing anti-US sentiment that is taking various forms, from conspiracy theories in the Muslim world to unease in Europe regarding the 'might is right' premise promoted by

Washington.

For instance, even in solidly pro-US Australia, the upper chamber handed down a defeat for the ruling party o­n Iraq. A new global coalition is emerging that incorporates the globalisation protestors plus the anti-war peace movement and the Christian clergy, particularly the influential Catholic church.

Third, as a consequence, the Bush administration is now relying o­n a combination of military measures backed by harsh rhetoric and a desire to take unilateral initiatives that have no diplomatic backing.

Hence, US unilateralism is boxed into a bunker of pragmatism where tactical, ad hoc reactive policies have replaced a strategic ideological vision that was initially evident after Sept 11 and for most of 2002 o­n the

'war o­n terror'.

Responsible for confusion

This is behind the dichotomy in the treatment of Iraq and North Korea, although both have been presumed guilty in Washington's eyes, of the same 'sin' around weapons of mass destruction.

This is also responsible for the confusion over the efficacy of a second UN resolution o­n Iraq, or the lack of substantive evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda.

A couple of positive aspects need to be noted o­n this count. The clash within the West has defused tensions between the Muslim world and the West.

If the strongest resistance to US policies o­n Iraq is coming from European Christians, surely those seeing the situation is a clash of Christian-Muslim civilisations are o­n a weak footing. And if the focus is o­n an institutional structure like the United Nations to resolve questions of war and peace, then it augurs well for those who feel any new world order ought to be based o­n respect for the rule of law, rather than the law of the jungle based o­n 'might is right'.

The key question is how much this shift in international opinion will influence, first, US public opinion and later, US policy toward Iraq as well as the conduct of the 'war o­n terror'. - AFP