The Iraq crisis can not be understood unless it is examined as a part of a major mutation of the international system which started with the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the 1991 war against Iraq. It is a functional disruption of the world system and which is felt today on a universal scale as the huge demonstrations of Feb. 15 against the war have shown.
People all over the planet are realizing that what is at stake is not just the fate of the people of Iraq but a deep fear of the consequences of an unprecedented hegemonism in the history of international relations. We are faced with a mega imperialism.
When the 1991 War erupted I described it as the ''The First Civilizational War'' and wrote, ''It can neither be halted by a Security Council resolution nor through an international solution or peace conference. It is a type of confrontation which will most likely last some 10 or 15 years taking various forms, not necessarily military, particularly on the eve of the 21st century which portends huge challenges that are essentially civilizational, rather than political or economic.''
In fact there has not been any real acceleration toward a war against Iraq because that war has never stopped and it has already cost over one million lives of innocent civilians, including a great number of children, just as it has destroyed almost completely the most basic infrastructures of the country.
Preparations for the new massive attack have been going on for months from the diplomatic, strategic and military points of view, including preliminary steps for its ''legitimization'' by the United Nations.
Hence what we are witnessing today is a continuation of a process of world domination which has been accentuated by a series of local and external factors. Among these we can cite the questioning of the regularity of the last (U.S.) presidential election results.
An economic recession, and the events of Sept. 11, 2001, which have greatly shaken the feeling of invulnerability of the Americans and which have been used to exploit as a system of governance nationally and internationally.
The fear of ''terrorism'' led to the launching a new worldwide set of military, political, economic and juridical measures which pretend to combat terrorism but which in fact assert the neo-imperialistic will of the United States.
Then there is of course the increased power of the military-industrial lobby and of the oil companies closely associated with those in the Bush administration who are eager to remake the map of the world.
This is referred to in the title of my book published in Tokyo in 2001 under the title ''The Afghan War, Second Civilizational War and the end of the Empire which started it.''
The Bush doctrine including the concept of a ''preventive'' war is not so new. It is totally meaningless when one compares the relative forces of the parties concerned. It is even ridiculous. The real reason is simply a desire to use power in all the forms of its expression to accentuate the ''globalization'' of the world and to prepare for its remapping.
The question of values will dominate the scene more than during the ''First Civilizational War'' because this time the problems will extend to the rest of the world, especially Europe.
In 1943, the philosopher Simone Veil wrote, ''Europe is situated as a proportional mean between America and the Orient. We know very well, that after the war, the Americanization of Europe is a grave danger and we very well know what we would lose if it happened. What we would lose is all that part of ourselves which is so close to the Orient.''
A hegemony of values is the greatest risk which humanity faces with the ''Bush doctrine'': because it only counts on the might of military power which will leave no room for diversity nor for democracy.
The most immediate effect will be an indescribable and incalculable destruction of what remains of Iraq and the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims of a barbarous attack which will be using and testing the most sophisticated weapons -- more so that those used against the Afghan people.
A U.S. military presence will follow, maybe on the model of the 1945 occupation of Japan. Preparations for an attack on Iraq will be initiated within the framework of a redrawing of the map of the world.
This redrawing will be unilaterally determined by one single power, unlike one of the precedents, the 1885 Conference of Berlin when Africa was balkanized and carved up among the Europeans. Nor will the process be similar to the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreements of 1916 which divided the Middle East into spheres of influence.
Israel will become the pivotal state in this new U.S.-led scheme. It will further the occupation of territories and will strengthen its role of Israel as the policeman of the Arab region.
Israel will also be closely associated with several oil related activities, such as the construction and running of the new oil pipeline Mosul-Gaza after the impending war in Iraq.
Here one sees the double standards of the United Nations and the international community. No country has more violated U.N. resolutions, international norms and human rights than Israel. A country which has nuclear capacities which no one raises and yet it is the one which will be on the forefront of the decision-makers of the future of the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia may be the main loser in any revamping of the area. Even some of the pro-American regimes will be changed. The ridiculous claim that the intervention in Iraq will be to bring about a democratization of the region is a total nonsense. Everyone knows that the United States, like many other Western powers, fears democratic processes in the Arab world because they would inevitably bring about a radical change in the foreign policies of the present regimes.
Even today, the quasi-majority of those governing the Arab world would not remain in power for more than a few months without the backing of the United States and some of the former colonial powers. More than half of the Arab countries have American troops on their soil as well as air bases and strategic and military facilities.
The only really credible weapon the Arabs have is oil. They used it in 1973 but are not ready to do so 30 years later! Their populations can not be fooled for ever.
Humiliation can not be accepted by any population beyond a certain period of time. The defense of dignity can not but promote reactions which may be violent in nature. New ''Intifadas'' will erupt throughout the Arab and Muslim world with a high social and humanitarian cost.
The intergovernmental system, including the United Nations and most of its agencies, the regional organizations such as the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Organization of African Unity, and the Non-Aligned Movement, to mention just these, will lose whatever little credibility they still have.
In the case of the League of Arab States, the last summit held in Egypt on Feb. 28 this year was an unbelievable betrayal of the cause the institution is supposed to defend. The U.N. Security Council is less and less a peace conclave and more and more a stock market, if not a trade fair, where votes are bought and sold.
My point of view ever since the 1991 war against Iraq was the two issues were intertwined. Iraq was attacked because it was the only Arab country with had heavily invested in scientific research and could represent a danger for Israel.
Some Palestinian leaders wrongly believed the American promises that after the 1991 war against Iraq new peace arrangements would be foreseen to guarantee the creation of a Palestinian state -- thus began the tragic comedies of the Madrid and Oslo conferences and a so-called ''peace process'' in which most of the Arab people did not believe in spite of the opportunistic backing of their leaders, who have been selling Palestine piecemeal for over half a century.
The same scenario maybe be sketched out again. It will lead nowhere. Liberation never comes from the outside. This is a lesson that most of the Arab and Muslim people will draw from an additional occupation to the ones they are already suffering from. I think it will be the end of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as we know it because it has given in too much without obtaining any concrete results for the Palestinians, who suffer from one of the greatest injustices of contemporary history.
Japan is a country that has known an occupation process following the total nuclear destruction of two of its cities. An occupation which in fact is not yet over as has been seen from the absence of a real autonomous Japanese foreign policy, a fact which is more than bewildering for the Muslim and Arab countries if not most of the third world states. Where do the economic, financial, industrial, scientific, technological and cultural assets of Japan disappear when it comes to translating them into a forceful foreign policy commensurate with these resources?
How can Japan seek a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council if its stands on key issues of war and peace are only a pale image of those of the United States.
Whatever Iraq does, there will be an American military intervention. Curiously enough the acceptance of all the decisions of the U.N. Security Council and demands of the U.N. inspectors have simply improved the military intelligence of the United States while almost totally annihilating any defensive capacity. This process will have simply improved the destructive capacity of the U.S. military intervention.
Baghdad was destroyed in 1520 by the Moguls and it might very well be again in 2003. The modern Moguls not only have no respect for human life, they even ignore the value of the cultural treasures of a millenary civilization. Even UNESCO, presently led by a Japanese director general, seems to be quasi-silent on this matter, as it was during the 1991 war.
We may recall in this context, a Japanese historical event. During the second siege of Osaka Castle in 1615, the inner moat was filled in in addition to the filling of the outer moat after the first siege in 1614, and Tokugawa Ieyasu could easily conquer the castle, destroying the Toyotomi family.
One thing is certain, the world will no longer be the same and however its map is redrawn, the United States will enter into a period of decadence which may last 15 years at the most. The greatest loser of all will be human civilization, which in spite of all its great advances in all areas of knowledge, has been incapable of mastering these developments for the defense of dignity and peace.
Let us not forget that we are speaking of an Arab-Islamic world which has suffered from conflicts which have led to 10 million victims. That is 100 times the total number of victims of the eight Crusades, which cost 100,000 lives. When the moment of truth comes, people in the Islamic world may discover what the real alliances are made of and how hard interests come into play in time of war. Those alliances in the final analysis are of a civilizational nature.
There should be no surprise as to how 1.5 billion people may and will react in defense of their dignity to this cultural cleavage. A question everyone is asking in that part of the world is where is Japan in all of this conflict and why is it so clearly one-sided?
As Professor Yuzo Itagaki, one of the top specialists on the Arab and Muslim world, has been repeating in recent years, ''Japan is losing a very valuable asset: the confidence of the Muslim world.'' Japan is a country that attaches a great cultural significance to the concept of ''respect'' and all of its rules and components.
The question today is whether it accepts to apply this approach to the respect for human lives, which are facing the danger of annihilation similar to those experienced by the Japanese people 58 years ago in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Up to today the U.S. military presence in Japan is still a reality and a precedent not to be lost sight of, especially in a unipolar world.
Peace is the most effective weapon of mass construction.
Mahdi Elmandjra: Born in 1933. B.A from Cornell University, and Ph. D. from London School of Economics. Professor at International Relations at University of Rabat since 1958. Author of ''Economic Aspects of Arab-Europe Dialogue''(1982) and ''Gulf Crisis: Prelude to the North-South Confrontation (1990).