The unjust war
An unjust war levied against Iraq will cost US in terms of its moral authority in the post-Cold War world. A belligerent USA can play havoc to global stability. A sensible and moral USA is needed not just for the sake of USA and its great people but for the stability, prosperity and peace of the world. If US hegemony is in decline, as Wallerstein suggests, it should decline gradually and not with a bang risking an already tenuous global order.
IN early September 2002, I asked Professor Immanuel Wallerstein, a well-known left liberal intellectual in USA: "what if Saddam Hussein goes to the national television and announces that in the interest of peace and safety of Iraqi people, he is stepping down would US still invade Iraq?" Professor Wallerstein's response was blunt. He said: "Even if Saddam commits suicide in front of television cameras, US will still invade Iraq in January 2003." In an article with a suggestive title, "The Crash Landing of the Eagle", published in the July-August 2002 issue of Foreign Policy Wallerstein argues that the US hegemony is in decline since 1970s in the wake of the Vietnam War. He also reminds the US hawks in that article that of the three wars that US has taken part since the World War II -- Korean War, Vietnam War, and the Gulf War -- the results were one defeat (Vietnam) and two draw. Yet such warnings are going unheeded by the hawkish Bush administration. The war seems to be imminent. Logic and rationality seem to have taken leave and morality is not even on the agenda for discussion.
Although it is difficult to determine what is just and what is unjust, philosophers have tried to establish conditions and principles under which a war can be viewed as just. Michael Walzer's book, The Theory of Just and Unjust War was published in the wake of the Vietnam War, which has since become a classic. The losses of civilian lives in the Vietnam War caused serious moral problems for the US public and a legitimacy crisis for the US War administration. In terms of the criteria of just war, the impending invasion of Iraq by the United States and its so-called "allies" will be unjust. War is a terrible thing, yet sometimes it becomes a necessity -- a necessary evil -- either as a response to atrocities and injustice or self-defence. Yet since war itself is barbaric, it poses a moral dilemma as to when and under what circumstances a collectivity (country, people, state) should go to war against another collectivity. Such a moral dilemma led to the creation of the concept of just war or "justum bellum", a notion that goes back to St. Augustine. In order for a war to be just the following criteria are to be met. 1. Just cause: such as defending fundamental rights (The war of independence in Bangladesh can be justified according to this criterion). 2. Right intention: saving victims of genocidal wars, as in the cases of Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia to oust Pol Pot in 1978 or India's intervention on behalf of Bangladeshi freedom fighters in 1971. Pure vengeance or empire building do not merit as right intentions. 3. Proportionality: War is a necessary evil. The evils of war cannot be disproportional to the injustices the war is trying to redress. 4. Authority: The war must be waged and backed by a legitimate authority (The Gulf War had the backing of the United Nations). 5. Last resort: a war can be considered just when all the non-military such as diplomatic options have been exhausted. 6. Restraint: the combatants must show restraint so that unnecessary civilian casualties are avoided. Walzer claims that lack of identification does not give a government the right to kill indiscriminately -- the onus is on the government to identify the combatants. The Gulf War was an example of a just war to a great extent. On the one hand, Iraq's claim to Kuwait was [and is] genuine in terms of history, such use of historical justice, if implemented all over the world, will lead to major redrawing of maps of the countries. In August 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait in violation of all international laws that protect rights to sovereignty and national self-determination. The cause of expelling war was legitimated by the resolutions of the United Nations, thus is was just and the intention was to dislodge Iraqi grip and as soon as the objectives were met the US-led allied forces pulled out of Iraq. They did not seek to unseat Saddam nor did they go for an occupation followed by Nuremberg-style trials and so on. Besides, the war was an almost last straw having exhausted various diplomatic channels including the visit to Iraq by the Secretary General of the United Nations.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 evoked an unambiguous response from the lay public to left/liberal academia in the United States. The whole nation was appalled as much as the sensible world at this mindless attack. A letter supporting the US war against terrorism bore the signatures of such luminaries as Michael Walzer and Theda Skocpol. To a large extent, US war initiatives against al-Qaeda and its so-called backers was a just war. I qualify this because the civilian casualties in Afghanistan cannot be justified in Walzer's terms. In launching war against terrorism, US had a just cause; after all,it was an aggrieved party. Comparisons were made between Pearl Harbour and September 11. In both instances, surprise attacks were launched against US targets. US like any other nation has the right to self-defence, not to mention the justification of pursuing its enemies to the farthest corners of the world. The United States had a just cause -- not to mention extraordinary means -- to take on the culprits.
However, the premise for invading Iraq is different. Until now, no one has provided any evidence of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda. The US allegation that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction is yet to be proven. UN weapons inspectors are yet to provide any evidence to that end. Whether Saddam Hussein is a bloodthirsty dictator or lives in expensive mansions do not justify an invasion. The rhetoric of "regime change" in Iraq is in violation of the principle of national sovereignty. Not only the idea of "preemptive strike" is without moral justification, it might establish a precedence with dangerous consequences world-wide. US grievance against Iraq is largely hypothetical. Iraq may have "weapons of mass destruction" and Iraq "may use those weapons against the American people". All this while, other dictators in possession of "weapons of mass destruction" can be dealt with diplomatically. There is no reason or rhyme in US arguments. Yet, there is a popular support for the invasion of Iraq in USA today. Why? The September 11 attacks dealt a severe blow to the national ego and public sentiment, and although many Americans want to see justice done, they are unable to make a distinction between vengeance and justice. Rather than taking a principled position, the Bush administration is riding on the crest of this moral ambiguity. What is unfortunate is that some hawks on the US administration are cynically exploiting the tragedy of September 11 to whip up an attitude of belligerence and vengeance thus blurring the difference between justice and retribution. The resistance that is coming from the liberal minority in the United States is feeble at best. In a recent article in Harper's former Presidential candidate and the doyen of American liberalism, George McGovern has taken Bush administration to task for spreading fear and pursuing a recklessly belligerent path. Earlier after a major speech of President Bush outlining his policies of regime change and rebuilding post-war Iraq, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi asked matter of factly: "But, who is going to rebuild our (US) economy?"
If a world-wide opinion poll is taken, the great majority will find US aggression against Iraq as unjust. (At the same time many -- myself included -- find the Iraqi regime as one of the most authoritarian regimes in recent history). Yet an unjust war levied against Iraq will cost US in terms of its moral authority in the post-Cold War world. A belligerent USA can play havoc to global stability. A sensible and moral USA is needed not just for the sake of USA and its great people but for the stability, prosperity and peace of the world. If US hegemony is in decline, as Wallerstein suggests, it should decline gradually and not with a bang risking an already tenuous global order.
Habibul Haque Khondker teaches Sociology at the National University of Singapore.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments