As the Valentine's Day deadline approaches for the 'imminent' US war on Iraq, it is time to stand up and be counted.

Instead of demanding more time for the UN inspectors, instead of haggling with Washington for a quid pro quo for supporting its campaign, instead of sitting on the fence demanding that Iraq disarm while meekly protesting against any unilateral strike, it is time to actually do something about it.

This is where India can play leader. And here's what it can do.

First, convene a meeting of all nations opposed to a unilateral strike against Iraq -- and you'd be surprised at the number -- and propose that they agree to send a joint message to Washington.

The text of that message should read:

'Dear President Bush,

We are firmly opposed to any unilateral strike against Iraq, and appeal to you to reconsider.

While we in no way endorse Saddam Hussein's rule, we believe that no nation can attack another simply because it does not agree with its political system. 

We would like to bring to your attention the fact that any strike on Iraq is likely to lead to a rise in oil prices, which in turn affects our economy both directly and indirectly.

Since America and its 51st state, Great Britain, will be mainly responsible for the rise in prices (even if it is only for a short duration) we believe it is only fair that America recompense us for the losses incurred by us during this time.

We propose to do this by decreeing a 500 per cent rise in taxes on every American and British business operating on our soil, and that includes franchises like McDonald's, from the day the war is declared till the price of oil stabilises again.

We have also decided to pool our resources and pledge to assist those likely to be most affected by any pullout by American businesses from their nations. This also includes allowances for the stoppage of US aid to some members, as is likely. Our governments are already in touch to formalise the details.

With best wishes,'

In my dreams?

Consider this:

At the moment, there is a growing groundswell of anti-war feelings across many nations. But they are essentially scattered and unorganised.

If such a document were to actually be submitted by even a handful of nations to the US, imagine the kind of domestic pressure the fence sitters, or to be more specific, the democratic fence sitters, will have, to sign on.

Despite Saddam's otherwise secular credentials, and despite Dubya's plaintive assertions to the contrary, most of the Muslim world already sees the attack on Iraq as the first step towards an attack on Islam. Already seething at the perceived indignities being heaped on it by America, they are likely to join any movement that might put the
US in its place.

Together, they account for an awful lot of American business.

But why should we be bothered about a war far from our borders? For that matter, why on earth should France, Germany and Russia want to antagonise the world's sole superpower? Why should China forsake the economic boom that US investment has brought? Why not insist on a share of the spoils instead in return for seemingly grudging support?

France, Germany and Russia have already expressed their objections to any unilateral US move. Any government that actually stood up to American bully boy tactics would surely top the popularity ratings, but only until the economic and political fallout of this defiance starts to sink in.

And why on earth should India actually initiate such a move, which would make it a target for American hatred? Particularly at a time when Indo-American ties are on a unprecedented high?

The answer lies in the fact that almost every nation is fearful of American dominance of the world and believes this proposed attack and occupation of Iraq could be the first step towards consolidating that dominance.

The answer lies in the fact that every nation-state now believes the only thing America respects is nuclear strength. The reasoning is simple, and difficult to argue against:  Iraq is allowing UN inspectors in while North Korea has thrown them out. Iraq has destroyed at least some of its arsenal while North Korea publicly announced its plans to build more nuclear weapons.

So while Iraq faces war, North Korea needs a diplomatic solution. While the UN is treated like dirt when it comes to the invasion of Iraq, North Korea is referred to the Security Council. QED.

The world can thus look forward to a mad race for nuclear weapons. Not just by tin-pot dictators and terrorists, but by otherwise sober nations which hitherto had eschewed such weapons.

The answer lies in the fact that if indeed such a letter was issued, American business would picket the White House demanding an end to war. After all, war is war as long as it doesn't affect business.

The answer lies in the fact that Russia and China, already keen to form an alliance which could balance US power worldwide, would seriously wonder why they hadn't thought of initiating such a move. While Israel, unable to publicly oppose the American plans, would privately heave a sigh of relief, and put away its gas masks for another day.

(This, of course, ignores conspiracy theories that suggest Israel backs the US move as a wider attempt to bring its hostile Arab neighbours to heel.)

The answer lies in the fact if India can initiate such a effort, it would become a rallying point for the 'rest of the world.'  What can Washington do? Impose sanctions against all these nations? Threaten to wipe them off the face of the earth?

The answer lies in the fact that if today it is Iraq that is being told to disarm or die, tomorrow it could be you.