Kampala — THE position taken by Uganda to support 'Operation Iraq Freedom,' by the US led coalition to topple Saddam Hussein and forcefully rid Iraq of suspected weapons of mass destruction is pragmatic and astute.

The Iraq war has attracted protest all over the world. Scores of Ugandan political commentators have also denounced the war.

Ugandans in general, however, are split over the war. There are those who are opposed to the US because they are unhappy with its foreign policy in the Middle East. Some because the US has often embraced rogue regimes, like that of the late Mobutu, whenever it serves her security or economic interests.

Lord Palmerston, once a Britain's Foreign Secretary observed: "There are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests."

Every country has its own interests and these influence its decisions.

Uganda may be a member of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, but this war is not about Islam as some Ugandans believe. Which is why some Arab states are supporting the war.

It is in Uganda's interest that Iraq does not possess biological, chemical, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction, epecially since Iraq has had close ties with Khartoum. There are no guarantee that Iraq would not supply these weapons to fundamentalists in Sudan with links with terrorist like the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA).

Under these circumstances, Uganda would have been unwise not to side with the US, which has been her strongest ally in the war against the LRA terrorists.

The US has given us cash for the anti-terrorist campaigns and has also designated both the LRA and Allied Democratic Force as terrorist organisations, to ensure that none of these groups get sanctuary in the US.

Sudan stopped arming the LRA partly due to US pressure after it was attacked during the Clinton administration.

Anti-war activists argue that the war is illegitimate because it was not authorised by the UN Security Council. But this is not the first military action has not been sanctioned by the UN.

Tanzania ousted Amin's dictatorship with neither the backing of the UN or Organisation of African Unity. The Security Council never mandated the NATO's intervention in Kosovo or India's in Bangladesh.

Individual countries have a right to protect or defend their legitimate security interests if threatened. The UN, due to the interests of some influential members, has routinely failed to act against rogue regimes. For example, it closed its eyes to the murderous regime of Idi Amin and the genocide in Rwanda.

The UN Security Council loses its credibility if it cannot punish those who threaten world peace.