In his opening remarks, the speaker highlighted the fact that the international community was never more divided as it currently is on the issue of Iraq. Though a consensus has evolved on some common concerns like the threat from Iraq to its neighbours in particular and the international community in general, disarmament of Iraq in terms of the UN resolution, and development of Iraq and its people; there is enormous disagreement over the means by which these above mentioned goals should be achieved. There is strong disapproval of the heavy-handed manner in which the US is dealing with the situation arising from many quarters. The strongest voice of resentment is coming from France, which has, however, a history of ambiguity in its stand in the name of principles.

Delving into the reasons for the US targeting Iraq, the speaker enumerated the following possible motives:

• Threat emanating after 9/11

• Institutional changes in the Arab-Israeli world

• Frustration over its failure to nab Bin Laden

• Finishing the unfinished task of 1991

• Oil

According to the speaker, the first two motives were the driving force for a prospective war on Iraq. However, there no consistent motive was being projected, giving the whole exercise of attacking Iraq look like an ominous display of the US’s hyper power status. Stating this, the speaker then went on to enumerate the 4 basic options before the US on the Iraq issue.

• Go to war immediately, irrespective of whether the proposed second UN resolution is passed or not

• Postpone the war by setting a future deadline in the hope that the situation will improve

• Give the inspectors more time (this is called the disarmament/containment strategy) as advocated by the French

• CDD+ Option (greater Containment, Deterrence and Diplomacy). The speaker had strong faith in the efficacy of this option and emphasized this time and again in his lecture.

Enumerating the threat rationale, disarmament rationale and internal security rationale as the three rationales prompting an attack on Iraq, the speaker analyzed the efficacy of each in the wake of the developments in Iraq.

• Threat Rationale – This is premised on an assessment of the capability and intent of Iraq and then gauging the consequences that would unfold as a result of going to war. If the consequences of going to war outweigh those of not going to war, than war will be preferred vis-à-vis peace. But if the risks are greater than the rewards, then the end result will conclusively favour peace. While calculating risks, one needs to look at three levels – local, regional and global.   While Iraq is known to possess WMD capability, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest its willingness to use them. Hence, the Iraq case fails the threat rationale.

• Internal Security Rationale – According to the speaker, internal security has become a major preoccupation of nations since the 1990s. Within the broad framework of internal security, questions on the limits of humanitarian interventionist strategies and national sovereignty have been raised. Can the US attack Iraq under the pretext of ensuring homeland security? Very unlikely. This also brings into sharp focus the ‘just war’ thesis based on principles like proportionality, morality and so on.

• Disarmament Rationale – Stating this to be the strongest and most convincing of the three rationales favouring an attack on Iraq, the speaker said that Iraq’s history of non-compliance or grudging, foot dragging compliance calls for punitive action since it threatens international peace and security. This must be done in compliance with UN Resolution 1441, giving Iraq a chance in the form of a deadline. The deadline option, however, opens a Pandora’s Box, as it is hard to arrive at a consensus over what can be termed a ‘credible and substantive’ deadline. The US is demanding a protracted inspection modality instead of a deadline, though doubts have been raised about the effectiveness of this inspection leading to disarmament. 

To conclude, the Iraq crisis falls within a twilight zone.  The proposed second resolution seems a charade, but an important formality for the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The only ray of hope available is strong public opinion against the war, which can compel US to take stock of the devastating domestic and political ramifications that unilateralism can have.   

Discussion

Gareth Evans presented a crisp and field based analysis of the alternatives to the war against Iraq. The following points were raised in the discussion following the presentation.

• While replying to the question on whether changing the regime in the countries that are promoting terrorism was the solution, the speaker replied that working with these countries for creating the political will and capacity to address the problem was a better option. The speaker also highlighted the need for addressing the socio-economic and political grievances of those countries.

• The speaker remarked that the only factor that can prevent the war is pressure of public opinion within the US, which seems to be a feeble possibility. He agreed that post war consequences have not been considered in these war preparations. And any attack on Iraq will lead to increase in Jihadism and finally lead to increased pro Iraq and anti US sentiments.

• He commented that everyone has failed to understand the driving force for Saddam’s non-compliance when he is hated within Iraq, according to field reports. 

• The speaker agreed with the fact that the enlightened regime of Saddam Hussein has its own benefits for the Iraqi people in terms of religious freedom and good governance. According to him, this does not justify a totalitarian regime. He observed that Iraq is capable of managing a democracy.

• He pointed out that the US unilateral action, without making a substantial case for war, would undermine the credibility of international institutions. According to him international institutions and laws are evolved according to the needs of the time. Therefore, with or without the war the international community will have to reconstitute international law and institutions to tackle the issue of unilateralism. He remarked that it is very unfortunate that the UN has been hijacked by great power politics.

• The discussion was concluded with the remark that the international community has failed to raise the collective conscience of the world against the unilateral action against Iraq.