"Will the U.S. clean up the environment?"

There is no such thing as a clean bomb, points out Guatemalan Nobel Peace laureate Rigoberta Menchú in a dialogue with Tierramérica. In the "war madness" that has been unleashed in Iraq not even international environmental accords are enough because "the trend seems to be non-compliance with treaties," she says.

MEXICO CITY - Rigoberta Menchú, 1992 Nobel Peace Prize winner, criticizes the United States for "treaticide", in other words, Washington's continued disregard for international treaties.

The Guatemalan indigenous leader, member of the Tierramérica editorial board, considers the armed attack against Iraq launched last week a violation of the United Nations Charter. And she asks the George W.

Bush administration, "in the process of reconstruction, will the environment be taken into account?" Excerpts from Menchú's dialogue with Tierramérica:

Q: The crisis in Iraq also represents a threat to the environment in that region. Why do you think this issue is largely absent from the demonstrations against the war?

A: I believe the popular protests we have seen around the world have separated out certain issues, which doesn't mean disregarding them. The message has centered on affirmations of peace and rejection of war and interventionism. Other messages, like respect for human rights and ecology, have not been as loud, perhaps because they are less attention-getting. Or because there is the belief that the environmental costs of this conflict will not be that great. But that isn't the case. The experience of the 1991 Gulf War taught us an important lesson. Let's not forget the numerous oil wells that burned for weeks, which caused a dense dark cloud over the region. That had its environmental impacts. I fear that the same will occur this time. The fires caused by the bombardments are going to contaminate the air, in addition to the human and material harm they cause, not to mention if the oil wells are set ablaze. We must remember that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers cross Iraq and they will surely be contaminated by this new military madness. We must ask the United States and its allies if the promised reconstruction of Iraq also includes environmental clean-up after all of the contamination and damage that is sure to occur. Keep in mind that most, if not all, of the bombs used are ecologically harmful. There is no such thing as a "clean" bomb.

Q: Can the world aspire to a "green" Geneva Convention?

A: The problem is not whether the world negotiations these agreements or not. The point is that many governments don't respect the treaties. Since 2001, the U.S. government has been characterized by its acts of "treaticide", its rejection of international treaties. It backed out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and withdrew its signature from the treaty to create the International Criminal Court, which just began operations. And these are just a few examples. Nations may negotiate accords, but unfortunately the major powers decide how they are going to work, if they will have financing and even whether or not they are going to operate. Today, the trend seems to be non-compliance with international treaties. In fact, the armed attack against Iraq is a violation of the United Nations Charter. The fashion is the major powers' unilateral conduct, without paying heed to existing agreements. It is like the beginning of a new law of the jungle, the law of the fittest.

Q: The militaries involved, which do not rule out the use of all types of weapons, will they obey environmental standards?

A: In modern war, there are no rules. Look at what the United States has done with the prisoners at Guantanamo (persons detained in the wake of the Sep 11, 2001 attacks). One cannot talk about conventions of war or respect for basic human rights, in spite of the existence of international treaties on these issues. If we look back in time, the Vietnam War worsened the lack of respect for the environment during conflicts. Even earlier were the atomic bomb against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of these weapons of mass destruction indicates that the environment is not important, that life in all its forms is not important. All that matters is the destruction caused to the enemy. We remember well what is known as Gulf War Syndrome, which left many soldiers ill, and some have died, as a result of the weapons used in that conflict. It seems that in recent wars the international conventions are not longer a priority, which is lamentable.

Q: Who pays the bill for the deliberate destruction of the environment during armed conflicts?

A: The people. They are the ones who end up paying, and not only for environmental destruction. They witness their lands becoming infertile, their forests destroyed. Rivers are filled with contaminating elements and people and animals can no longer drink from them. The parched land puts millions of people at risk and causes massive flows of migration, leading to humanitarian disaster. As you can see, it is a vicious circle.

* Pilar Franco is a Tierramérica contributor.