This War Has Surpassed All Limits Of Uncivilised Behaviour

One of the most uncivilised characteristics of this war has been the total disregard for international law and the laws of armed conflict, asserts Vice Admiral Biswajit Dasgupta (retd).

'The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ/Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit/Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line/Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.'

This famous verse from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, translated into English by Edward FitzGerald, symbolises the non-reversibility of our actions and that we alone are responsible for them, however big a mess we make out of our lives.

Our actions change our existence in ways we cannot even imagine, sometimes for the good and often for the worse.

The US/Israel War against Iran is a depressing example of how the world has been plunged into economic uncertainty and great human suffering including enormous losses of life and property.

One of the most uncivilised characteristics of this war has been the total disregard for international law and the laws of armed conflict.

The indiscriminate targeting of schools and civilian targets has surpassed all limits of uncivilised behaviour.

The normal evolution of humankind pre-supposes that enhancement of knowledge will lead to enhancement of power which in turn will lead to the betterment of society.

However, such an idealist philosophy does not seem to resonate with some political leaders and their blatant disregard for collective good and a 'might is right' approach seems to be taking parts of the world back to the law of the jungle.

There could not be a greater example of the dismal depths to which human thought can take the world than the outrageous threat about 'wiping out a civilization in one night'. The baser instincts of humans appear to be getting the better of enlightened judgement.

Failed Ceasefire and Escalation

The ceasefire after 40 days of war, engineered by the USA, with a fawning and compliant Pakistan as proxy, was destined to be short-lived.

The US delegation was led by Vice President J D Vance but experts have commented that the one-sided, Israel-dictated agenda was carried by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

The very forces that started the war with Iran were trying to engineer the agenda for conflict termination even after being decidedly on the back foot.

The US delegation's refrain was that Iran did not accede to their demands and hence the talks failed.

There was no congruence between Iran's 10-point proposal by Iran and the USA's 15-point demand list.

The latter, especially, was not an agenda for negotiation -- it was a demand for total capitulation, which was rejected by Iran.

Negotiation is a process of 'give and take'. There was no common ground to even start talking.

It is therefore no surprise that the negotiations collapsed -- it was stillborn from the beginning.

Threats to International Maritime Order

Now that the talks have not borne fruit, there could be further escalation of the conflict if important installations are targeted.

The USA has already declared a blockade of Iranian ports, which, by itself, is an act of war.

This means that the ships and other assets enforcing the blockade are now legitimate targets for Iran.

On the other hand, if Iran chokes the Strait of Hormuz or levies charges for passage of ships, it will amount to disregarding the right of transit passage through international straits as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The UNCLOS has been signed and ratified by most nations of the world and in that regard, is the constitution by which oceanic affairs are conducted.

The world cannot allow a few nations at war to disturb the global maritime order. Both the USA and Iran must respect international law in letter and spirit. They have no right to disrupt world peace.

The Imperative for UN Reform and Global Cooperation

Every strategic commentator seems to suggest that the world order is changing and there needs to be acceptance of this changed reality.

Nobody, however, seems to be proposing how that is to be achieved. The structure of the United Nations has to fundamentally change.

For that, the veto power of the P-5 should be taken away for a certain duration of time and all UN Security Council powers vested with the UN General Assembly.

If that does not happen, incumbent resistance will stymie any change of the status quo.

Once the veto power is removed, the UN General Assembly should deliberate the state of global geopolitics for an agreed duration of time and a recommended restructuring should be put to vote, in accordance with stipulated criteria for the motion to pass.

The functioning of all organs of the UN should be simultaneously reviewed. The eventual restructuring should reflect the present reality.

Any attempts at restructuring will face massive incumbent resistance.

Therefore, in the interim, there is a need for like-minded nations to come together to challenge the status quo, to challenge single-currency domination, to challenge technology denial, to challenge anti-climate change politics, to challenge trade and tariff blackmails, to challenge infringements of international rules-based orders, to challenge religious extremism, to challenge State and non-State terror including 'might is right' mindsets, to challenge global inequality and to create an environment that sustains global cooperation and peace.

BRICS may be a good start point, with the support of the African Union, ASEAN and Japan.

With NATO fractured and the EU drawing away from the USA, this forum could gradually be expanded to form an alternative to the UN, if restructuring attempts fail.

In the meanwhile, one hopes that American and Israeli people will see the futility of the developing calamity and force their respective administrations' hands to hasten meaningful negotiations and end the misery caused by this completely unnecessary war.

• THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT

Feature Presentation: Rajesh Alva/Rediff