Perhaps the next biggest show of international solidarity on the world stage was related to the Gulf War – solidarity against waging another one. As is well known, the Bush administration pushed for war on Iraq in all the international arenas. The international community held together and said no to war. The leaders of the world did not budge except for a very few.
Internationally, people took to the streets and protested. They humiliated the leaders who were willing to sway to the will of the giant. School children, parents and seasoned peace activists alike took to the streets and expressed their opposition.

The shifting of opinions wasn’t against the idea of the US or its people. It became more targeted. People linked corporate America with the US government. In India, students organized boycotts against US and British institutions like the American Center or the British Council. US products like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonald’s and Nike were boycotted. Worldwide, many US-made consumer items declined in sales.

In an international poll conducted by the BBC after the Iraq war, 57 percent of the world’s people said that they had unfavorable attitudes towards President Bush.

The aftermath after the fall of Iraq has not been pretty, and still the battle continues. After the fall of the Iraqi regime, the so-called hub of terror, the Middle East has become more and more unstable. Quiet at first, the backlash has been harsh. Initially contained to regional instability, it remains to be seen if the “allies” can manage growing security issues.

But the bodies slowly are piling up and questions are being raised on the other side of the world. The infamous “Hutton inquiry” in connection with the death of David Kelly, the primary scientist to say that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq, is questioning the legality of war and the legitimacy of the occupation of Iraq.

The message to Blair from the British people and members of Blair’s own party is clear: there will be consequences if you are wrong. At least the British have a system of accountability. Where is the US accountability system? According to Hugo Young, Vermont correspondent for the Guardian, “(In the US) the media are too dispersed, and still mostly driven by the need to prove their own patriotism.” So the people of the US never see the news the way the British do, or as a matter of fact, the rest of the world.

Back in Iraq, the situation is getting worse and worse. After the war terrorists – potential and practicing – flocked to Iraq to vent their hatred against the US. The allies faced up to 20 attacks a day. Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian wrote: “Before the war, President Bush told us Iraq was a throbbing hub of terror. It wasn’t, of course. But it is now.”

The world questioned Operation Iraqi Freedom every step of the way and protested against it. The world’s leaders didn’t see legitimacy in the occupation. But the US went in, toppled down another regime, just because it could. This time around everyone knows that something fishy is going on. In countries like India, people saw it as a neo-colonialist invasion with corporations pulling the strings. So when the time came to send in their troops, the government of India declined. It was unwilling to support an occupation that the whole world is against.

The US has tried to handle things on its own while the Middle East peace processes deteriorated gradually, pushing the UN, the organization that is supposed to maintain international law and order, into the background. The nations of the world banded together and refused to give aid, especially militarily without any resolution of the UN. The message was clear, no nation, not even as powerful as the US, can invade another nation and break international law and expect to be legitimized afterwards. In the end the US had to go back to the UN, which it had shunned in order to get into Iraq. The lone giant couldn’t handle things by itself, no matter how powerful it was.

It is apparent that the US leadership and the war hawks behind it also need to be removed from power in order to save what little real security is left. Perhaps Jonathan Freedland summed it best when he wrote for the Guardian that “[t]o get all that may require one more thing, which only the American people can provide, 14 months from now: new leadership.”

Well, those 14 months are now just 11 and the clock is still ticking. Most of the world thinks Bush should not be the leader of the superpower nation. Will US voters agree next year around this time?



--Shelley Delos is an international correspondent for Political Affairs.