Neil Harvey
“Teach-in/Speak-out for Peace”
New Mexico State University
October 28, 2002
I would like to make some comments regarding the alternatives to war. I do so as someone concerned about our common future, as Americans and non-Americans, as friends, colleagues, educators and students, as people committed to using knowledge for the betterment of our society and our relationships with other societies. With a possible war on the horizon, I am particularly thankful that we have the opportunity to speak here at this “Teach-In/Speak-Out for Peace”. I am the last person to want to disrupt the normal schedule of classes and teaching, but am convinced that a larger disruption awaits us if we do not try to understand the state of the world today and the worrying tendency to simplify politics into easy “us” versus “them” oppositions. I think that this tendency is part of what I will call the “global war fantasy” against which we need to be vigilant.
I was originally going to talk on globalization and militarization, but I noticed that the question of alternatives to war needed to be directly addressed during this Teach-In/Speak-Out. This question is an entirely legitimate one, since opposition to war implies support for something else. I do not pretend to be an expert on this issue and hope to learn more from those who have given more time and thought to the complexities of war, peace, Iraq and international politics. This is work in progress. With that proviso, here are my thoughts on the alternatives to war.
If we listen to the Bush administration’s rhetoric about Iraq, we can understand why many people seem to think that there are simply no alternatives to invasion and war. The constant disregard for the effectiveness of UN weapons inspections is only the most obvious example of what has become a barely disguised unilateralist position.
What we are faced with is not the lack of alternatives to war, but the systematic undermining of those alternatives. It is of course possible that this will end up leaving war as the ‘only’ option, and it is for this reason that we need to examine this process carefully.
What appears to be taking hold is a kind of fantasy for the unaccountable use of military might (Said 2002). In such a fantasy, the world’s only superpower sees itself as able to carry out ‘pre-emptive strikes’ on another country, march successfully on a city of five million inhabitants, overthrow the government, install a new one, pacify the rest of a divided country and region, and return to base, leaving democracy, peace and security behind.
There is something terribly simplistic about this fantasy, one that misses all of the likely consequences of what could only be a long, bloody and increasingly complex set of military conflicts. Moreover, it smacks of an arrogance that is rightly condemned around the world, of a superpower that realizes that it has no serious military competitor and can therefore ignore history and international law in order to deploy its formidable arsenal. What is particularly worrying is the idea that ‘regime change’ can be militarily induced and politically sustained. This is not only naïve. It is also a sure way to help sustain terrorism and political violence.
Let us consider some reasons why the US should not invade Iraq. In this way we can identify the possible alternatives, while highlighting our main point: that the current policy is not interested in alternatives, but only in undermining them. We will then perhaps appreciate the need not only to defend non-violent alternatives in the case of current policy towards Iraq, but also recognize the broader implications for our common future.
1. A unilateral US attack would be illegal under international law. It would be a violation of the UN Charter, which states that war can only be declared in self-defense or with the approval of the UN Security Council. Currently, neither of these conditions exist (Global Exchange 2002; Zinn 2002). The use of a ‘pre-emptive’ strike would set a dangerous precedent that other countries may follow. Moreover, the US could be the country that follows its own precedent, by continuing to make more ‘pre-emptive strikes’ as it sees fit, given that it alone has the military capability to ‘go it alone’. The consequences of this policy for international cooperation would be disastrous. To quote Nelson Mandela, former South African President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner:
“We are really appalled by any country, whether a superpower or small country, that goes outside the UN and attacks independent countries. No country should be allowed to take the law into their own hands…What [the Bush Administration] is saying is introducing chaos in international affairs, and we condemn that in the strongest possible terms.” (Associated Press, September 3, 2002).
2. There is no firm evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Attacking Iraq would not help improve security for the US or the world (“War with Iraq is not in America’s national interest” 2002; Zunes 2002). To quote Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush:
“There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the September 11 attacks. Indeed, Saddam’s goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us…An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter terrorist campaign we have undertaken.” (Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2002).
3. There is no firm proof that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction or that it is a threat to its neighbors (none of whom have demanded such an invasion out of fear of Iraq). UN weapons inspections prior to 1998 were largely successful in dismantling Iraq’s offensive capabilities (Ritter 2002). In terms of conventional arms, Iraq’s military is now at one-third of its pre-Gulf War strength (Global Exchange 2002). Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter insists that Iraq presents “absolutely nothing” of a military threat. In its most recent report, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iraq no longer has a nuclear program (Zunes 2002). Saddam Hussein’s main goal since 1991 has been self-preservation, not military expansion.
4. Defeating Iraq would not come easily or quickly. Baghdad is a city of 5 million, and still possesses defensive capability as well as most of Saddam Hussein’s military force. Aerial bombings and urban combat would result in thousands of casualties. Uprisings against Hussein can be expected from Kurds and Shi’ites, but they are likely to focus on their own regions in the north and south of the country, respectively, while Saddam’s supporters defend Baghdad. The Bush Sr. administration refrained from going after Saddam, knowing that it would create more instability and a protracted war. The current administration seems to be less concerned by such a prospect, despite the fact that long-term occupation would have to be financed by the US without allied support.
5. A final reason not to invade Iraq is that it would further undermine democracy in the United States itself. There are several countries that possess weapons of mass destruction, including Israel, India, Pakistan (as well as the five established nuclear powers, the same members of the UN Security Council – US, Britain, France, Russia and China). So, why Iraq? The answer is oil. Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia and a post-Saddam, US-installed regime would allow for lucrative contracts for US and transnational oil corporations (Boje 2002). In addition, making war a permanent feature of the global landscape would undermine efforts to implement arms control treaties, thereby creating more opportunities for the arms business domestically and internationally. The US is the largest arms dealer in the world. Between 1989 and 1997 the US sold US$82.4 billion worth of weapons worldwide, while the rest of the world’s nations combined sold only US$66.8 billion (Minix and Hawley 1998: 409). For the US, the political impact of war on Iraq would to strengthen even further the power of the oil lobby and the arms industry, limit the independence of Congress and curtail civil liberties more generally in the name of ‘true’ patriotism. The only antidote to this scenario is the widespread recovery and exercise of democratic voice by the mass of the population. The new peace movement is an important part of this effort.
The global war fantasy threatens to undermine all possible alternatives. Let us look at five examples.
Firstly, the global war fantasy threatens international law, specifically the UN rules governing the use of force against another country. The alternative is firstly to respect international law, and secondly to strengthen, not weaken, international efforts against war.
Secondly, the selective use of force against Iraq undermines international efforts to gain compliance with arms control treaties. An alternative would be for the US to lead by example, implementing its own obligations to reduce its nuclear arsenal along with all other nuclear states (Greenpeace 2002). This would create greater confidence that the removal of weapons of mass destruction is a matter for global cooperation rather than selective coercion.
Thirdly, the failure of Israel to comply with UN resolutions has historically allowed Palestinians and Arab governments to level charges of double-standards against the US and its allies. The alternative is to ensure Israeli compliance as a step towards rebuilding a peace process that can produce lasting stability and justice for both sides. A US-led invasion of Iraq would do nothing to lessen the conflict. Nor would it empower those Israelis and Palestinians who struggle for peaceful coexistence.
Fourthly, the UN weapons inspection teams were largely achieving their goals until the end of 1998. The alternative now is to allow them to return as soon as possible, while ending the sanctions that have contributed to 500,000 deaths of Iraqi children under five years old (almost three times as many as the number of Japanese killed during the US atomic bomb attacks) (Gordon 2002). Removal of sanctions is necessary for the reconstruction of water-treatment installations bombed by the US and its allies during the Gulf War in 1991. Iraqi children continue to die from water-borne diseases as a result of those bombings and the sanctions policy (Ascherio et al 1992; Barrett 2002; Gellman 1991; Eisenberg 1997; End Iraq Sanctions; Pflaumer 2001; Rizer 2001).
Fifth, and finally, instead of embarking on a war for oil, a sane alternative would be to reduce dependency on oil consumption, ratify the Kyoto Treaty on the reduction of emissions, and promote alternative energy policies that are based on renewable sources such as solar and wind power.
The fact that these alternatives appear difficult to achieve only underscores what is at stake: the global war fantasy is not only about disarming Iraq. It is also about disarming peaceful, democratic, and socially and environmentally sustainable alternatives at home and abroad.
Earlier today my friend and colleague Nadia Rubaii-Barrett spoke of the need to reclaim patriotism. I would add the need to reclaim democracy.
Defenders of the current policy towards Iraq often criticize their opponents for not proposing viable alternatives. This line of argument is problematical because it assumes that the current policy is a legitimate and well-reasoned position for people to support. It is not. It is a fantasy, one designed to further American imperial power over all peoples (Bookman 2002). Its consequences defy calculation and evade democratic deliberation.
The alternatives to this fantasy are not other fantasies, but the product of years of political dialogue, the actions of peace movements throughout the world, the negotiation of arms controls, and the persistent faith in the possibility of peaceful coexistence between peoples. The global war fantasy, with its simplistic “us” versus “them” logic, threatens to throw all of this into the dustbin. If this fantasy is to be resisted, then it can only come from people reclaiming democracy as something vibrant and effective, rather than an empty slogan in whose name, once more, the unspeakable is committed.
References:
Ascherio, A. et al. 1992. . “Effect of the Gulf War on Infant and Child Mortality in Iraq” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 327, no. 13 (September 24): 931-6.
Barrett, Greg. 2002. “Running Dry” The Seattle Times. August 4.
Boje, David M. 2002. “Oil and Empire: Say No to the Oil War” Revised version. October 18.
http://www.zianet.com/boje/1/pages/oil_wars.htm
Bookman, Jay. 2002. “The President’s real goal in Iraq” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. September 29.
Eisenberg, Leon. 1997. “The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters: Human costs of economic sanctions,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 336, no. 17 (April 24): 1248-50.
End Iraq Sanctions campaign http://www.scn.org/ccpi/
Gellman, Barton. 1991. “Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq: Officials acknowledge strategy went beyond purely military targets,” Washington Post. June 23, p.1.
Global Exchange. 2002. “Top ten reasons why the US should not invade Iraq”
http://ww.globalexchange.org/campaigns/iraq/invadeIraq082702.html
Gordon, Joy. 2002. “Cool War: economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction”
Harper’s Magazine, vol.305, no.1830, November, pp.43-49.
Greenpeace. 2002. “The weapon is the enemy: why attacking Iraq will not solve the problem of Weapons of Mass Destruction”
http://www.greenpeace.org/features/details?features_id=32174
Minix, Dean and Sandra M. Hawley. 1998. Global Politics. Wadsworth Publishers.
Pflaumer, Kate. 2001. “P-I is wrong on Iraqi sanctions,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer. June 21.
Ritter, Scott. 2002. “Is Iraq a true threat to the US?” Boston Globe, July 20.
http://ww.globalexchange.org/campaigns/iraq/ritter.html
Rizer, Kenneth R. 2001. “Bombing dual-use targets: legal, ethical and doctrinal perspectives,” Air & Space Power Chronicles. May.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/
Said, Edward. 2002. “Israel, Irak y Estados Unidos”
La Jornada en Internet
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/per-israel.html
“War with Iraq is not in America’s national interest.” 2002. Op-ed page of the New York Times, September 26. Signed by 33 prominent realist scholars of international relations.
“What People are Saying About Invading Iraq” Global Exchange 2002
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/iraq/whatpeople.html
Zinn, Howard. 2002. “The case against war on Iraq” Boston Globe, August 19.
http://ww.globalexchange.org/campaigns/iraq/zinn.html
Zunes, Stephen. 2002. “Seven Reasons to Oppose a US Invasion of Iraq”. www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/iraq/zunes.html
See More
Talks from Teach-In/Speak-Out for Peace event held Oct 28 at Las Cruces New
Mexico