Hi Rog,
You asked an interesting question; one which I have been mulling over for
quite a while:
> What would you all suggest the MOQ endorses in the case of Iraq? What
should
> the rest of the world do with the perceived threat of Saddam Hussein?
What
> course is the best course?
>
A few things on this.
The decision to attack Iraq has in effect now been taken, informally if not
formally. That is because if Bush now backs away from a committed conflict
then Saddam will be perceived to have 'won', and his position will become
significantly stronger as a result - his credibility with Arab governments
(and especially the Arab 'street') will be greatly enhanced - and his
capacity to build up his economy and gain nukes (WMD) will be enhanced. In
that case, a few years down the line, we will have a nuclear-armed Saddam to
deal with, and the last situation will be much worse than the first.
Although I don't rate Bush's intellect very highly (his or his advisers) I
think that much will be clear to them, as will the fact that Bush will be
exposed to ridicule in any re-election campaign, if he doesn't follow
through on his bellicose rhetoric. (That he has resorted to such rhetoric,
and closed off his options, is one reason why I don't rate the White House
Intelligence Quotient particularly highly. Bush's various speeches to Wall
Street also displayed a less than historical grasp of the situation -
perhaps he thinks the name Hoover only applies to vacuum cleaners. But that
is off the point)
The justification/rationale for the attack runs roughly as follows:
1. Saddam is demonstrably aggressive and has used WMD.
2. Saddam is renewing his WMD capacity.
3. If Saddam gains WMD he will supply them to terrorists to attack the
US/West and/or use them to establish hegemony over the oil resources of the
Middle East.
4. 3 is an unacceptable outcome, therefore we must act now to prevent it.
Logically, I think 3 follows from 1 and 2; much of the interesting debate it
seems to me is about what 4 involves. I don't think 1 or 3 are really at
issue. Although Saddam isn't the only monster out there, he seems the most
volatile and nasty. However, 2 is a little open to question. Embedded in 2
(and most of the pro-war arguments) is the assumption or assertion that the
international regime on non-proliferation is ineffective. I think that this
point needs to be made more openly and strongly than it is at present. To
say the least, there is room for scepticism about both sides of the
argument - it is too easy a soundbite for someone like Rumsfeld to mouth,
but that doesn't make it false. I haven't had a chance to read the UN
inspectors reports, which would seem the first thing to do in order to gain
my own conclusion. In any case, the authorities may have evidence which is
intrinsically unavailable for public consumption, so it comes down to a
question of trust. I'll come back to that.
It seems to me that the most important aspects relate to issues of
international law. And this is also where the MoQ has something to say.
Broadly, with regard to a society of individuals, a social order has more
quality if it is subject to the rule of law. The development of a rule of
law was a highly dynamic break through with regard to human society - it
prevented the concentration of force in the hand of the most
brutal/strongest, and allowed more people to get on with their lives, with
all the DQ possibilities inherent from that. The rule of law underpins both
democracy and capitalism (so I'm assuming you'll be happy with that Rog
-) ) It seems to me that an international order which respects a rule of
law is of higher quality than one which does not - so the EU is of higher
quality than the UN, which is of higher quality to the international order
c1900.
If the US unilaterally attacks Iraq then it will undermine the rule of law
at the international level. Of course, the rule of law internationally is
something of a misnomer - it's a fragile thing, lacking, in particular, an
effective enforcement body - and clearly there are times when 'you have to
take the law into your own hands'. But an action against Iraq which is
undertaken without regard to international law would be very different to
one undertaken with a heavy heart because international law had failed, and
which was consequently followed up by action to support international law.
(I think this is the difference between Bush and Blair. Bush 'couldn't give
a shit' about international law/opinion, whereas Blair seems to have a
strongly internationalist impulse).
One other thing: one of the principles of 'just war' theory (which is what
international law derives from) is that the outcome of a war should not be a
worsening of the overall situation. I think this is a point that needs to be
more thoroughly aired and debated. In particular, there seems to be no
attention paid to the law (or risk) of unintended outcomes. Whilst I have no
doubt that if the US was serious about it, it could conquer Iraq and
dismantle Saddam's system, I worry about the long term consequences for that
country and also for the other major countries in the region, especially
Saudi Arabia, which could easily have a 1979-type revolution - and again,
the last outcome will be worse than the first. However, this is a question
of the balance of risks, and is for those in authority to judge - it's not
something I think we can second guess. However, I'm sure we will be given
sufficient insight into the quality of judgement and decision making that
characterises our dearly beloved leaders. It's possible that the US could
make the right decision for the wrong reasons (as also the converse, of
course).
Sam
"If what we do now makes no difference in the end then all the seriousness
of life is done away with" - Wittgenstein
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST