I read the Star article bearing the title ' Governing council holds first meeting ' with much disgust. It stated that a 25-member interim governing council in Iraq backed by the United States has been appointed recently.

These members will be given certain powers in appointing ministers and reviewing laws amongst other things. The United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, said that "these are defining moments in history for Iraq." Is it really?

In America' s attempt to topple Saddam's regime and reinstate its so-called US-version of democracy, it goes on further to prove to us that the United States is slowly but surely asserting its power over weak nations in order to eventually create a new order.

I would like to quote verbatim from the newspaper which reported that the new council which is composed of 13 Shi'ites, five Sunni Arabs, five Kurds, one Assyrian Christian and one Turk, sees the formation of the council as a first step on the road to democracy for Iraq.

I guess this is all fine until Washington said that it hopes daily attacks on US troops in mainly Sunni central Iraq will decline if Iraqis feel the US and British occupying powers are empowering local leaders. I would like to question the real purpose behind the appointment of the council members. Is it to reinforce the true meaning of democracy and put it into practice or is it to ensure that the US forces, which have invaded Iraq, are safe?

My "respect" for America further increases when I turn the page and read the headline 'Blix: 45 minutes to deploy' claim wrong. Blix who headed the UN weapons inspectorate called for the UN inspectors to be allowed to return to Iraq to continue the search for banned weapons after the war. This request has been turned down by the US occupation authorities. In fact, US will go further by setting up its own weapon inspection body. One really do wonder how independent and neutral this inspection body is going to be.

When is this going to stop? The US has repeatedly ignored the United Nations' Security Council resolutions and the invasion of Iraq without UN sanction has just finally pulled the string. Even then, Bush publicly declared that what he did was right. Really?

According to the United Nations charter, it provides for several exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force. Among these exceptions, questions have been raised whether the war waged by the United States and its allies fall under such exceptions; mainly has it fulfilled the requirements under Article 51 of the charter which provides for the right to self-defence?

Even then, if a state concludes that there is a threat to peace, and there is a justified reason for "pre-emptive" measures (as claimed by US authorities in the case of Iraq), the use of force could only be sanctioned by the Security Council as provided for in Article 39 of the charter.

Finally, it is much argued by the proponents of the Iraqi war that it is in accordance with customary international law, which allows for humanitarian military intervention. There are two schools of thoughts when it comes to accepting humanitarian intervention as a legal justification for war.

An example would be the Nato air strikes in Kosova in 1999, which resulted in a regime change. However, some beg to differ and tend to think that although customary international law is recognised as a leading and authoritative source for public international law, there is no evidence at all of state practice or opinio iuris that would have led to an amendment of the UN charter, by means of customary international law, in the sense of recognising humanitarian intervention as an exception to the prohibition under Article 2(4). This is supported by the Nicaragua judgment by the International Court of Justice.

Let us assume then that humanitarian military intervention is a just cause for the use of force, we still need to ask whether it has amounted to sufficient basis for such intervention in Iraq?

Apart from looking into Resolution 1441 and 687, these are the fundamental aspects of international law in which one must look at in order to establish whether the war against Iraq was legal or not.

The United Nations was formed because of the failure of the League of Nations to promote and maintain peace after World War One. Now, it is time to ask whether the United Nations is "redundant", or perhaps, George Orwell's depiction of a "big brother" regime as portrayed in his book 1948 may just come true one day.