Stephen VasciannieHARDLY A day goes by without a flurry of diplomatic activity concerning the Iraqi crisis. One day, Colin Powell is trying to convince the world that the evidence concerning Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction is compelling; on another day, Tony Blair throws similar punches, but faces substantial resistance from members of the House of Commons; later, the French and Germans come up with a new proposal to head off military confrontation, shortly followed by a Canadian paper floating on the outskirts of the United Nations Security Council.
At about the same time, Hans Blix, head of the United Nations Monitoring and Verification unit, in charge of the search for Iraq's weapons, indicates that the Iraqi decision to destroy a few missiles is an important sign of progress. And, as this is relayed to the world, there is talk about whether the Pope, and if not the Pope, the newly enthroned Archbishop of Canterbury, may influence Tony Blair, who may, in turn, influence President Bush, about the flaws inherent in the pro-attack perspective.
Meanwhile, throughout the world there is if not a restlessness of spirit, there is certainly division of opinion. Within the United States, no small number of people are inclined essentially to put their trust in the President, assuming that he has the knowledge and the judgement, to do the right thing. Others, stimulated in part by the spirit of democracy, and by recollections of Vietnam, have openly challenged the militaristic option, taking their views to the streets and to under-publicised meetings with their political representatives.
In London, other European capitals, and elsewhere, thousands rally against intervention in Iraq, primarily on humanitarian grounds, but also motivated by the notion that American hegemonic sentiments must not be allowed to promote disorder in the world. On the streets of Kingston, there are only small demonstrations, built on the premise that Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War. Here, though, crowd size is probably not a good indicator of mass feeling, for very few persons in public discourse raise support for the American position, and it is easy to believe that the Government's position follow the United Nations route is widely accepted.
ANY PRO-WAR SUPPORT?
In Jamaica, then, the pro-war position is in search of supporters. The American ambassador to Jamaica has called on us for the loyalty that one friend owes to another in times of difficulty, and, from a casual counting of local columnists, perhaps one writer would be prepared to vote for an attack on Iraq in some circumstances. Otherwise, there has been a kind of broad sweep of anti-war sentiment, even an echoing of voices, against the war.
As one who would not support intervention at this time because it would be inconsistent with the United Nations Charter I nonetheless find this uniformity of opinion in Jamaica a cause for at least mild concern. The argument about intervention in Iraq clearly has two sides, and involves matters about which reasonable people may differ. So, how then, is it that pro-war supporters are so thin on the ground?
The pro-war position is built on the notion that Iraq's putative possession of weapons of mass destruction, as well as chemical and biological weapons, constitutes a threat to international peace and security. But, the argument is not just that Iraq possesses these weapons - mere possession could not give rise to intervention in anybody's books; for it is no secret that the major powers, together with countries such as Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea have similar weapons or the means to manufacture them. So, it would be rank hypocrisy to attack Iraq merely for seeking to possess what other countries already have.
Rather, then, the argument is that in the context of Iraq's behaviour in recent years - invasion of Iran, invasion of Kuwait, use of illegal, biological weapons against the Kurds in Northern Iraq - that country should not be allowed to possess certain kinds of weapons. This conclusion is shared, it seems, by all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and there are probably a dozen Security Council resolutions to that effect.
In fairness, therefore, the anti-war position needs to explain why it is against the use of force on this occasion to bring Iraq in line with the requirements of international law. In face of this perspective, arguments of varying degrees of validity have been proffered. One is that there are other trouble spots in the world, so why is the United States prepared to attack Iraq alone? The weakness of this particular argument may be demonstrated by brief analogy.
There are many robberies in Kingston at night; surely, this fact does not mean that efforts should not be taken to end a robbery in progress when we have the means to do so.
Uniting for peace
Another argument that has recently been advanced - with greater validity than the hypocrisy position - concerns the Uniting for Peace Resolution. In essence, as Horace Levy pointed out recently, the Uniting for Peace Resolution allows the United Nations General Assembly to take action in matters concerning international peace and security when the Security Council is stymied as a result of the veto by a permanent member.
Levy and others suggest that the General Assembly could seize the Iraqi question from the Security Council by virtue of the Uniting for Peace Resolution, and vote for peace. In response, two points need to be noted here. First, it is not clear how a vote by the General Assembly for peace will make a difference to the current situation. If the United States opts to attack Iraq without a Security Council resolution, this will be illegal; the invocation of the Uniting for Peace resolution - to indicate that an attack would be illegal - would, therefore, appear superfluous.
Second, the Uniting for Peace resolution was originally an attempt by the United States to get countries to support intervention when, owing to Cold War antagonisms, the Soviet Union voted against action. It is in a sense a misnomer, for its purpose was originally to give the General Assembly the opportunity to sanction the use of force when the Security Council was against force. My fear, therefore, is that if the Uniting for Peace Resolution is revived, it will reduce the Security Council's primary authority with respect to international peace and security, and it may eventually be used to justify force in other conflicts, even though on this occasion it would be invoked to preserve peace.
Other arguments have been advanced both for and against the intervention. I hope these will reach the Editor's desk. There can be more to our analysis of the situation than anti-hegemonic sentiment and the oil argument (though these issues should not be ignored); and on the other side, the supporters of the intervention still need to provide more convincing evidence concerning Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law at the University of the West Indies.
