Strange things happen o­n the way to disarm Saddam Hussein. Millions of people in hundreds of cities around the world went o­n the streets simultaneously to demonstrate.

Instead of targeting Saddam, the demonstrators were gunning at President Bush, the o­ne who leads the way towards disarming Saddam. Out of these millions, not a single demonstrator has pointed a finger at Saddam.

So, who is the real villain? Saddam or Bush?

Judging from the global intensity of this anti-US frenzy, an observer from outer space may be excused if he quickly jumps to the conclusion that Bush is the villain, and Saddam, the victim.

In case people forget, as appeared to be the case now, Saddam Hussein o­nce upon a time (12 years ago) invaded and occupied Kuwait. He was beaten by UN forces and made to pledge to destroy all his weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

This pledge was deemed necessary due to Saddam's records of aggression and brutality: having invaded two neighbouring countries, launched missile attacks o­n six countries, mass murdered Kuwaiti minorities with bio-chemical weapons and wantonly executed political dissidents.

Saddam was given an ultimatum to disarm within 3 months. 12 years later, that pledge remains unfulfilled.

Under massive build-up of armed forces (mainly US) at Iraq's borders, Saddam agreed to let UN weapons inspectors to return, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441 dated 8th Nov 2002, which resolved to give Iraq the "final opportunity" to fulfill its disarmament pledge, in default of which "serious consequences" would follow.

In spite of Resolution 1441, Iraq has not fulfilled its pledge, as evident from the proceedings of the latest UN Security Council meeting o­n Feb 14, where member after member pleaded with Saddam to comply completely with UN resolution to avert a war.

That message was reinforced by stern warnings from both the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the European Union during a EU emergency summit o­n Feb 17.

I quote Annan: "If they (Iraqi) were to continue their defiance...UN Security Council will have to make a grim choice: whether to declare material breach and the serious consequences that may followI urge the Iraqi leadership to choose compliance over conflict." (AP)

I also quote from the EU declaration after the summit: "Baghdad should have no illusions. It must disarm and cooperate immediately and fully. The Iraqi regime alone will be responsible for the consequences if it continues to flout the will of the international community and does not take this last chance." (AP)

Those who accuse the US and UK of wanting to commit aggression against Iraq out of greed for its oil should watch closely the speeches and demeanours of these respective leaders in their TV appearances over the past few days.

Desperation was written all over Tony Blair's face, as he was obviously hoping against hope that Saddam would miraculously relent or disappear at the last minute to spare Blair the agony of engaging in a war that no body wants to see takes place.

In such desperation amidst mounting opposition from his own people, o­ne sees in Blair the steely leadership that was the hallmark of o­nce a great empire: courage and adherence to principles in the face of seemingly insurmountable adversity. The bottom line remains clear: there will be no compromise o­n Saddam's disarmament, whatever it takes and whatever Blair's personal sacrifices may be.

As for Bush, watchers of TV should not have missed the silver lining in everyone of his stern warnings to Saddam though time was running out, war was not inevitable if, and o­nly if, Saddam would come clean with his weapons.

If Bush wanted to grab Iraq's oil by force, would he have offered peace to Saddam, again and again, even at this last hour when US forces are fully poised to strike at lightning speed?

History has revealed to us that appeasement to aggressors in the hope of avoiding war will inevitably end up in catastrophic war. If the League of Nations (predecessor of UN) had been firm (at risk of armed conflict) to prevent Hitler from re-arming Germany, would there have been a full-scale world war where tens of millions of lives were lost?

If the righteous powers had courageously intervened when Japan started to occupy Manchuria in the early thirties, would there have been a Japanese war o­n China and the Pacific which lasted eight years and cost tens of millions of lives?

If US pull back its forces from the Gulf now, will any o­ne honestly believe that Saddam could be disarmed by a toothless UN? If not, can you expect the US to keep such mighty forces at combat readiness o­n the borders of Iraq for months and years o­n end, while waiting for the UN inspectors to find all the needles in a haystack?

Yes, finding needles in a haystack is exactly what the UN inspectors are doing now, considering the fact that Saddam's bio-chemical weapons are so compact that they can be stored (above or below ground) in spaces the size of a bungalow, and Iraq's geographical spread is 4 times the size of Peninsular Malaysia.

What would be the consequences if Saddam continues to possess and develop his WDM (weapons of mass destruction)? Is it not reasonable to expect that some of these weapons will be used by the global terrorists that are now bent o­n destroying the current world order?

A 911 attack o­n US with 3,000 deaths had so shaken the world, that it caused widespread economic damage and almost plunged the world into an economic recession.

A Bali bomb blast where 200 people died, has brought ruins to the struggling Indonesian economy, and has also substantially dimmed the economic prospects of the entire Southeast Asian region.

The above incidents testify to the vast transformation the world has gone through, thanks to the IT revolution that took place in the past decade.

Societies and regions are so well served with instant information, that any occurrence of catastrophe of a vicious and political kind can cause instant panic and collapse of confidence. This may reverberate exponentially to exert immense adverse impact o­n current political and economic order damages that are far disproportionate to the physical size of the localized affliction.

Thus, the collapse of two buildings in New York could cause retardation to world economy. Similarly, a bomb blast in a Bali nightclub could damage tourism and investment in Southeast Asia.

Having understood the devastating effects a terrorist attack can have o­n regional and world economy, is it not imperative that the containment and elimination of international terrorism be made the top priority of the world

community?

Current network of international terrorism is potent and lethal and the world is already facing a Herculean task to cope with such threats. With an 'un-disarmed' Iraq under Saddam as a potentially endless source of WDM , it is simply a risk that the world cannot afford to take.

A small fraction of Saddam's WDM could easily wipe out a population many times the size of a 911 disaster, if applied at the right place and at the right time. A few of such WDM attacks in quick succession could cause

unimaginable chaos to the political and economic order of the day.

The massive anti-war demonstrations around the globe in the past few days have ironically achieved the exact opposite of what they set out to do.

They have brought the war nearer by emboldening a besieged Saddam into thinking that he might just continue to defy UN without getting beaten, just like he used to do so well in the past 12 years.

US as well as UN have in the past tolerated a non-compliant Saddam. But the US has changed irrevocably since 911. Allowing Saddam to go un-disarmed is simply not an option any more.

If o­nly a fraction of the millions of demonstrators who opposed Bush purportedly for the sake of peace, had instead directed their pressure o­n Saddam, they would have served world peace better by conveying the correct signals to him.

Millions of chanting demonstrators giving Saddam an ultimatum would certainly have increased the possibility that he might just do the right thing for his people disarm or quit.

The well intentions of anti-war campaigners are commendable, but for heaven's sake, let us not be self-defeatist by aiming at the wrong target. Let us re-channel our pressure o­n where it is due, and save humanity from another war.