WORLD VIEW: The world is on the brink of war. The United States and a coalition "of the willing" are becoming convinced that only military action can fully disarm Saddam Hussein. At the same time, international public opinion survey results clearly indicate that more than half the world's people are not in favour of military action against Iraq under present circumstances, writes Mary Robinson.
How has the United States lost so much of the worldwide support and sympathy which were manifest in the months following the terrible attacks of 9/11?
The answer, I believe, lies in people's concerns at the shift in US policy from giving priority to tracking down al-Qaeda and preventing acts of terrorism to gearing up for a war on Iraq.
It also arises from the strong sense that decisions about major international issues are increasingly not the product of multilateral deliberation but unilateral demand.
But perhaps there is something deeper and more disturbing at the centre of this: a growing trend in mistrust of governments and institutions and their ability to represent the greater public good.
Citizens have seen governments in the aftermath of 9/11 using the legitimate aim of fighting terrorism to abuse fundamental rights.
They know that other threats such as the current situation in North Korea could pose even greater risks to international peace and security yet to date there has been a marked absence of leadership and shared responsibility for addressing this crisis.
Experience in places like Afghanistan tells them that a commitment to overthrowing a government does not necessarily mean an equally held commitment to rebuilding after war.
Where does this leave those of us deeply concerned about the human rights consequences of war in Iraq and its aftermath?
In concluding his presentation to the UN Security Council on the situation in Iraq, US Secretary of State Colin Powell recalled Saddam Hussein's appalling human rights record over the past two decades during which he has shown unspeakable cruelty against his own citizens and also against his neighbours. Secretary Powell reminded the world of the broad range of human rights - civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural - that have been and continue to be violated on a massive scale in Iraq.
Responsibility for these violations falls squarely on the Iraqi government. Saddam Hussein must be held accountable for his actions.
But we must also be honest in saying that international efforts to address the human rights situation in Iraq have been largely absent over the years, and the impact of a decade of economic sanctions imposed by the international community has aggravated greatly the suffering of ordinary Iraqis.
If human rights are to be invoked as one of the reasons for military action, these issues must be dealt with as well. In the days ahead, we must take the time needed to assess the extent to which war, seen by some at least in part as a means of addressing past and current human rights violations, risks instead creating another humanitarian disaster in Iraq and beyond.
We must understand fully how such a conflict could widen the rapidly deepening gulf between the West and the Islamic world and also accentuate divides across the Atlantic and within Europe itself; how it might erode respect for international law and bolster terrorist organisations; how it could be seen as international decision making by coercion rather than by consensus.
We must also ask hard questions about how the human rights situation in Iraq should be improved after a war.
It would be dangerous to assume that the same level of political attention currently dedicated to disarming Iraq would be given to supporting the Iraqi people in rebuilding after war.
Nor can it be assumed that there would be immediate acceptance and obedience to the codes and controls that any new ruling authority or eventually elected government would put in place.
Creating democratic structures is a generational project which must involve all sectors of society as well as responsible support from the international community.
The Security Council must remain central to any decision on Iraq. War, as horrible as it inevitably is, remains as one option, but only in the gravest of situations, when threats are clear and present, when all other approaches have been fully exhausted, and when the combined will of the world's governments and their people stand behind it.
If the Security Council eventually decides on the need for military intervention, it should keep at the forefront of its deliberations the core humanitarian principle of minimising threats to life and bodily harm of innocent people who bear no responsibility for the policies of the Iraqi government. It must also be committed to more than promises of aid after war.
If instead, it decides that the objectives of disarmament can best be achieved without military action, it must also recognise that the community of nations has a shared responsibility to devise a regime of containment which includes measures to address serious ongoing rights violations in Iraq.
For all the talk about the universal values which should guide efforts to tackle the most difficult global problems facing the world, there remains far too little commitment to acting on these values in practice.
The Iraqi people have been denied their fundamental rights for too long.
A war to topple Saddam Hussein is not the surest way to bring them justice.
Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, is based in New York and heads up the Ethical Globalisation Initiative