August 2002

Ignoring conflict-resolution’s rules of thumb Any professional conflict-resolution expert will tell you that it is better to keep some channels open for communication with the adversary than to close them. She or he would also argue that the more we know about the other side – and about ourselves – the greater the chance that we will eventually make a compromise or otherwise solve the problem. That is, if we want to find a solution. The Bush regime obviously doesn’t, and the rest of the West – in particular the EU – doesn’t seem able to be able get its act together and decide on much more than criticising Iraq for one set of reasons and the U.S. for another. The United Nations, who ought to be the mediator, has been systematically marginalised by the U.S. and has little legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqis. So, we are heading for war...

Ignoring conflict-resolution’s rules of thumb Any professional conflict-resolution expert will tell you that it is better to keep some channels open for communication with the adversary than to close them. She or he would also argue that the more we know about the other side – and about ourselves – the greater the chance that we will eventually make a compromise or otherwise solve the problem. That is, if we want to find a solution. The Bush regime obviously doesn’t, and the rest of the West – in particular the EU – doesn’t seem able to be able get its act together and decide on much more than criticising Iraq for one set of reasons and the U.S. for another. The United Nations, who ought to be the mediator, has been systematically marginalised by the U.S. and has little legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqis. So, we are heading...

The Bush administration’s apparent resolve to wage war against Iraq, tempered for the moment by conservative critics, violates the spirit and letter of the US Constitution, as well as disregards the prohibitions on the use of force that are set forth in the UN Charter and accepted as binding rules of international law. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Nothing in Iraq’s current behavior would justify a preemptive attack against Iraq based upon self-defense as set forth in Article 51 of the Charter. Even Henry Kissinger has stated, “The notion of justified pre-emption runs counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual not...

The American Constitution at the very beginning of the republic sought above all to guard the country against reckless, ill-considered recourse to war. It required a Declaration of War by the legislative branch, and gave Congress the power over appropriations even during wartime. Such caution existed before the great effort of the 20th century to erect greater barriers to war by way of international law and public morality, and to make this resistance to war the central feature of the United Nations Charter. Consistently with this undertaking German and Japanese leaders who engaged in aggressive war were punished after World War II as war criminals. The most prominent Americans at the time declared their support for such a framework of restraint as applicable in the future to all states, not just to the losers in a war. We all realize that this struggle to avoid war has been far from...

Beyond the Sanctions What accounts for the obsessiveness of American policy toward Iraq over the course of more than a decade? Is it another Vietnam in the sense that the US Government cannot bring itself to acknowledge the failure of its approach to regime change in Baghdad since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein having withstood comprehensive sanctions, a variety of covert assaults, and repeated American harassment from the air without flinching? Is it the pique at the White House and Pentagon associated with the electoral removal from the scene of Bush, Sr. contrasting with the persistence of Saddam Hussein, posing a filial challenge to Bush, Jr.? Is it the long deferred payback to Israel for staying on the sidelines during the Gulf War, despite the Scud missiles being fired from Iraq? Is it a matter of securing US control of the oil reserves being linked to periodic...

Two weeks in Iraq are not sufficient to acquire the knowledge necessary to produce an extensive and detailed analysis of the conditions prevailing in this part of the Middle East. It is, however, long enough to be able to verify the picture so powerfully presented by the individuals and organisations involved who fight daily for the several humanitarian issues that plague those most ignored and forgotten developing countries. The aim of this text is not to try to influence one’s opinion with emotionally charged expressions but to discuss some of the reasonable arguments concerning the “Oil-for-Food” programme. A Short History of the Sanctions For more than a decade the UN has been imposing sanctions against Iraq. During the last few years, three of the highest UN representatives have left their positions in protest against the unreasonable character of the sanctions programme. Various organisations (the UN and others) involved in the...

Two weeks in Iraq are not sufficient to acquire the knowledge necessary to produce an extensive and detailed analysis of the conditions prevailing in this part of the Middle East. It is, however, long enough to be able to verify the picture so powerfully presented by the individuals and organisations involved who fight daily for the several humanitarian issues that plague those most ignored and forgotten developing countries. The aim of this text is not to try to influence one’s opinion with emotionally charged expressions but to discuss some of the reasonable arguments concerning the “Oil-for-Food” programme. A Short History of the Sanctions For more than a decade the UN has been imposing sanctions against Iraq. During the last few years, three of the highest UN representatives have left their positions in protest against the unreasonable character of the sanctions programme. Various organisations (the UN and others) involved in the...

The Iraq issue must get out of the “zone of silence” Scholars do empirical work based on theories and hypotheses. Journalists profess to describe reality. Diplomats are supposed to know countries and policies by being present. Western embassies in Moscow were particularly important during the Cold War. This has not been so with Iraq. Generally – a word that means that there are exceptions – Western scholars seem to think that they don’t have to go there to know or form their own opinions or influence those of others. Journalists and their editors don’t seem to think that they should go there before they write their articles and editorials. Governments are under-informed since many countries either have no representations, low-level representations or cover Baghdad by shuttling in and out from a neighbouring country from time to time. This is not as it should be. Reports everywhere tell us that the...

Ground Zero is a place of profound sadness and heart breaking sorrow. Its earth is filled with the blood of thousands who lost their lives. For what did these people die? Their deaths seem so meaningless. Could we, the living, give their deaths meaning, even if only postmortem? What would the dead want us, the living, to build on their graves? What would they reply, if they could speak? Would they want us to leave Ground Zero empty, literally “zero”? Or would they want us, the living, build a memorial for the unspeakable tragedy that happened? I believe the dead would want to offer life, they would be delighted by symbols of liveliness and joy, and not be willing to invest in past sufferings. The dead would wish to dedicate their deaths to be the seeds for future peace, not for future divisions. To die for peace provides ultimate sublime...

The Iraq issue must get out of the “zone of silence” Scholars do empirical work based on theories and hypotheses. Journalists profess to describe reality. Diplomats are supposed to know countries and policies by being present. Western embassies in Moscow were particularly important during the Cold War. This has not been so with Iraq. Generally – a word that means that there are exceptions – Western scholars seem to think that they don’t have to go there to know or form their own opinions or influence those of others. Journalists and their editors don’t seem to think that they should go there before they write their articles and editorials. Governments are under-informed since many countries either have no representations, low-level representations or cover Baghdad by shuttling in and out from a neighbouring country from time to time. This is not as it should be. Reports everywhere tell us that the...

Few would deny that September 11 unleashed a fearsome sequence of reactions, and none so far worse than the anguishing fury of this latest cycle of Israeli-Palestinian violence. Surely the United States is not primarily responsible for this horrifying spectacle of bloodshed and suffering, but there is a gathering sense here and overseas that the US government has badly mishandled its crucial role for a long, long time, and especially since the World Trade Center attack. As the situation continues to deteriorate for both peoples, there is a rising chorus of criticism that paradoxically blames the United States both for doing too much on behalf of Israel and not enough to bring about a durable peace. Both lines of criticism seem justified. There is little doubt that part of the recent escalation can be traced back to President Bush’s overplaying of the antiterrorist card since Day One of the response...

These are difficult times for peace. Since the Bush administration assumed power in the United States, there has been a steady beating on the drums of war accompanied by a systematic undermining of the foundations of international law. The September 11th terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon bolstered the Bush administration’s plans to secure US global military dominance through increased military budgets, deployment of missile defenses, development of more usable nuclear weapons and the weaponization of space. Congress has largely acquiesced in supporting these plans. The United States has always held to a double standard with regard to nuclear weapons. This double standard was given legal form in the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), in which five countries were designated as nuclear weapons states (United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France and China), and the rest were designated as non-nuclear weapons states. The latter agreed in...