Iraq in Focus
Over the past several weeks, the Institute has provided a forum for different views on the evolving situation in Iraq.
February 2003
UN Weapons inspectors face Iraqis in Baghdad in February.
A Just War?
During the months leading up to the Gulf War in 1991, there was considerable discussion of whether an American attack to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait would satisfy "just war" criteria. Much less discussion of this question has occurred in recent months as the United States considers an invasion of Iraq.
The Institute organized a symposium on December 17, 2002 to address the question "Would an Invasion of Iraq Be a Just War"? To debate this question, Gerard Powers, director of the Office of International Justice and Peace of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Robert Royal, president of the Faith and Reason Institute; George Hunsinger, professor at Princeton Theological Seminary; and Susan Thistlethwaite, president of Chicago Theological Seminary, presented papers outlining their views. David Smock, director of the Institute's Religion and Peacemaking Initiative, moderated the symposium.
"Christian just war doctrine" was developed by Saints Ambrose and Augustine and refined by Thomas Aquinas and others. The doctrine provided a middle road between the pacifism of the early church and unrestricted use of force in God's service. Just war theory encompasses both the decision for war (jus ad bellum) and behavior during war (jus in bello).
Powers noted that the United States, in collaboration with others, has not only a moral right but a grave obligation to defend against mass terrorism and the threat Iraq poses. "But the difficult moral issue is not mostly about ends but about how to defend the common good against such threats," he said.
Powers found the Bush administration's concept of the doctrine of preemption disturbing. Rather than an option in exceptional cases, it is turning into a new doctrine about the legitimacy of unilateral action without clear, imminent threats. He added that the U.S. Catholic bishops question the wisdom of unilateral action against Iraq.
Royal's view is that 9/11 has rendered previous assessments obsolete. The wrong weapons in the wrong hands is a global threat. "We have to ask ourselves where in the contemporary world the most worrisome weapons of mass destruction are likely to come from. Baghdad is one such source," he said. Royal is confident that American military planners can satisfy the principles of both jus in bello and jus ad bellum.
For Hunsinger, "Preemptive strikes must meet a high standard of justification. Otherwise, they are acts of aggression that violate international law." Hunsinger also expressed doubts about the chances of a swiftly successful conclusion and noted that war would "wreak havoc on a civilian population already tortured by war and sanctions."
Thistlethwaite found that classical just war theory carries "the force of history and the virtue of clarity" and that the doctrine does not allow for a first-strike attack. However, the "simplistic divisions of good and evil, religion and secularism, violence and non-violence, and us and them no longer hold."
Varied Views: An America View
"This is not about America," said assistant secretary of state Richard Armitage at a January 21 Institute briefing. "This is about Saddam Hussein—and what he is prepared to do—and what he is not doing right now. He is not meeting the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1441."
While many say a "smoking gun" has not been uncovered, Armitage remarked that "there is nothing but smoke." If Iraq wanted to satisfy the disarmament mandate, it would be forthcoming with the truth, said Armitage, and not wait to have the information pulled from it.
The Bush administration sincerely hoped for a solution short of war, said Armitage. However, for 12 years, Hussein's regime has acted with impunity and without regard to its own obligations to its own people or to international agreements. The people of Iraq have borne the burden of corruption, deception, and international sanctions. "The past is prologue," said Armitage.
While there are differing opinions within the administration on how to proceed after weapons inspectors report their findings, Armitage saw little likelihood that Hussein and his associates would comply meekly, change their ways, or act to undo the damage of the last 12 years.
A French View
Two main powers from the European Union—France and Germany—also serve as principal powers on the UN Security Council and have actively opposed the Bush administration's war plans.
Visiting the Institute on February 7, French ambassador Jean-David Levitte stressed three points: there is a history of friendship and mutual support between America and France; France does not exclude the use of force as an option should inspections of Iraqi weapons capacity lead to a dead end; and Europe is opposed to war with Iraq at this time and views al Qaeda as a greater threat to European security than Iraq.
A UN View
Shashi Tharoor
The United Nations has three main areas of concern, said Shashi Tharoor, UN under secretary general for communication and public information, at an Institute meeting on February 13. These concerns are the displacement of people within Iraq and across its borders; the danger presented by weapons of mass destruction and landmines, including unexploded ordinance; and adherence by all parties to humanitarian law and principles.
The United Nations can only act when asked, or mandated. This is one constraint on the UN's planning for a war in Iraq. The other constraint is financial: only $30 million of the $120 million required by the UN agencies engaged in activities related to Iraq has been pledged, much less received. UN agencies will be involved in logistics, communication, and coordination mechanisms for getting access to people in need. While longer-term planning about the UN's role in post-conflict situations is constrained by its role as a mandate-only organization, UN officials have learned from their experience in Kosovo about the requirements for short-term planning, and some preplanning is already taking place within the United Nations.
Saddam's Lesser Known Victims
While the United States and its allies and detractors consider the number of weapons destroyed and the number of troops to be deployed, minority populations within Iraq suffer daily under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein's regime. In this regard, the numbers are numbing: the Marsh Arabs, a society of 500,000 people, have lived in and around a once 12,000-square-mile freshwater wetland ecosystem for some 5,000 years. Up to 80 percent of Iraq's potential oil wealth is in this area. By now, however, most of the Marsh Arabs—or Madan—have left the area. Only a few thousand remain.
On November 14, the Institute hosted a Current Issues Briefing to examine the effect of Hussein's polices on the Madan; the environmental and humanitarian consequences of the draining of the marshland; and how international laws on water rights apply to the Madan people. Moderated by Richard Kauzlarich, director of the Institute's Special Initiative on the Muslim World, the discussion featured Emma Nicholson, member of the European Parliament and its special rapporteur for Iraq; AMAR International Charitable Foundation CEO Peter Clark; Joseph Dellapenna of the Villanova University Law School; and James Brasington of the University of Cambridge's Department of Geography. Together they have produced a book, The Iraqi Marshlands: A Human and Environmental Study.
Researchers have concluded that the destruction of the marshlands had no economic or developmental purpose, but rather was carried out with the singular purpose of destroying the Marsh Arab people in response to their opposition to Hussein's regime.
If so, it was a perversely successful venture that destroyed a region, a people, and a way of life.
