US President George W. Bush appears to be a man obsessed by Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, when the commander in chief of the world's most powerful military machine has an obsession, the rest of the world is forced to take notice.
With Britain's Tony Blair acting as the loyal camp follower, it appears that US military action is creeping that much closer. But if military action is taken without the authorisation of the UN Security Council, it would be in complete violation of international law. Mr Bush and Mr Blair claim that Iraq is trying to make nuclear weapons. Such weapons are not illegal under international law. If they were, the United States and Britain would have to give up their nuclear arsenals.
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, Iraq and other non-nuclear weapon states gave up their right to acquire nuclear weapons. But this was a voluntary decision, and the treaty also allows signatories to withdraw from it. More important, the treaty does not prescribe any penalty for countries which break away.
Legally, the United Nations Security Council would first have to determine whether Iraq is in fact in possession of nuclear weapons, and if this were the case, whether this constituted a threat to peace. If it was a threat to peace, military action would be an option.
But if Iraq is trying to produce nuclear weapons, it is not the only country in the region doing so. Israel has a sophisticated nuclear programme, and is widely believed to have developed nuclear weapons. Does Mr Bush intend to do something about this as well? Clearly not.
This is why the rest of the world finds it so difficult to take the White House's repeated assertions that Saddam Hussein is a threat to world peace seriously. There are clearly two sets of rules in operation - one for those who are friends of the US, and those whom the US dubs rogue states.
