Ask the Right Questions

Dr. Neil Arya

Ottawa Citizen

March 7, 2003

The recent waves of anti-war demonstrations throughout the world have shocked official Washington and London. How can sensible people, young and old, from all walks of life and all shades of the political spectrum, take time on their weekends to march, often in severe weather, to oppose leaders of two of the greatest and oldest democracies?

Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction, invaded two countries, tortured political opponents and killed members of his own family. Few would shed tears should he be overthrown or killed.

The U.S. volunteers to do just that, bear all of the costs, help rebuild and bring democracy to Iraq and possibly to the region. Victory should be easy against a military and population weakened by 12 years of sanctions. Yet instead of celebration and expressions of gratitude, 80 per cent of citizens in nations such as Spain, Italy, Britain and Australia – countries whose governments support the U.S. - are unwilling to support military action even with UN backing.

I have a southern Iraqi patient who was imprisoned and tortured by Saddam's regime. Two of his uncles were executed. Yet he is opposed to an invasion. So are my Kurdish patients, who came to Canada as refugees. No one could want to get rid of Saddam Hussein more. Why aren't they and I won over by the pro-war camp? I believe that the major reason is that the pro-war camp isn't asking (or answering) the right questions. Let's see.

WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS THEY ARE ASKING?

Is Saddam Hussein a liar and does he hang out with a bad crowd?

The first justification for war was the "revelation" that Saddam lies. But Colin Powell's allusion at the UN to the "fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed ... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities" was not "intelligence" at all but in large part plagiarized and embellished works from a PhD student and from a 1997 Jane's Defence Weekly paper. (Both now oppose this war.) This kind of "intelligence" led to the mistaken bombing of the Chinese Embassy during the Kosovo war, of Sudanese pharmaceutical factories in 1998 and of an Iraqi baby formula factory in 1991.Powell's fuzzy satellite pictures and recordings, discounted by arms inspectors, bring back memories of pre-Gulf War intelligence reports falsely showing Iraqi troops massing on the Saudi border, and the heart-wrenching, but false, testimony before the U.S. S Congress of babies thrown out of incubators by the Iraqis. Meanwhile, in a recent audo tape, which the U.S. believes demonstrates definitive links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden calls for the overthrow of the "infidel" Baathist regime. Even UK intelligence sources dismiss any connection between the two. Historically, American links to both bin Laden and Saddam are far stronger than the latter to each other.

Does Saddam Hussein defy international order?

The U.S. cites violation of several UN Resolutions. Critics counter that a pre-emptive war would violate laws on international sovereignty, deny Iraqi children their rights to life, family, adequate nutrition, education, health care and play protected under the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure - and some leaked plans suggest this - will be inconsistent with Geneva Conventions. After the last Gulf War, in which civilian infrastructure was destroyed, sanctions prevented Iraq from rebuilding and were thus responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Is Saddam Hussein dangerous?

The U.S. administration cites the danger of weapons of mass destruction under Saddam Hussein. Yet Mohamed ElBaradei, the International Atomic Energy Association's chief inspector, finds no evidence of any imminent nuclear weapons capacity. The CIA's director, George Tenet, agrees, and says that if Iraq had small stashes of chemical or biological weapons they would only be used in response to a direct attack. UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix finds Iraq not completely co-operative, but also finds no evidence of WMDs. Even hawkish former United Nations Special Commission Head Richard Butler chose this time to participate in a peace rally.

So where are the threats of weapons of mass destruction?

Former International Court of Justice vice-president Christopher Weeramantry condemns U.S. threats to use nuclear weapons against Iraq as unprecedented and illegal.

Might we bring democracy to the region?

People mistrust the U.S. as an instrument of change since it supports many dictatorships in the area (including Saddam while he was gassing and torturing just prior to the Gulf War). In 1991, the U.S. restored the Kuwaiti monarchy rather than help develop a new democracy. Subsequent exhortation to Shias and Kurds to rebel against the Iraqi regime in 1991 and 1996 was followed by abandonment and sometimes active resistance by the U.S. in the name of regional stability.

Aren't our critics just naïve or self-interested?

The U.S. administration chides the French and Russians for self-interest with oil contracts but current Vice President Dick Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, signed $73 million worth of contracts with Iraq in 1998 and 1999. U.S. planners are currently deciding how to safeguard the oil supply and divvying up contracts post-Saddam.

SO, WHAT THEN ARE THE QUESTIONS THEY SHOULD BE ASKING BEFORE LAUNCHING A WAR?

First, how imminent and credible is the threat?

No imminent threat has been demonstrated. Saddam Hussein has been "contained."

What will this do to the Iraqi people? What will this do for countries and peoples in the region?

Two IPPNW documents (http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/peace-health/Iraqcomm.pdf and http://www.ippnw.org/CollateralDamage.html) predict that 48,000 to 258,000 people would die in the first three months of battle. The International Study Team and the World Health Organization have published similar figures. Higher mortality could result with regional instability, destruction of infrastructure and refugees impoverished by sanctions. Use of nuclear weapons could magnify the death total into the millions. Significant environmental damage could result from the firing of oil wells and spilling of oil on land and sea, and from the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium.

What will it do for our own safety?

Osama bin Laden must be smiling as he thinks of new recruits throughout the region while U.S. attention is diverted.

What will this do to the economy?

We have already seen increased oil prices due to stability and a possible global recession will affect the world's poor the greatest. This war is likely to cost $50 billion to $200 billion.

What will it do to international institutions?

U.S. unilateralism could undo 150 years of development of international laws and the UN leading to long-term catastrophic consequences. We are not arguing for doing nothing, just doing something substantially different.

What are alternatives?

Regional arms control is important. Support a military ban on equipment to Iraq, and regular inspections inside the country and at its borders.

Genuine moves on the part of the Nuclear Weapons States to abolish nuclear weapons as mandated by Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and support for inspection and verification regimes to get rid of biological and chemical weapons would add moral strength to such efforts.

Support regional peace processes, particularly a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question, would move a long way to decreasing terror.

Military sanctions must be de-linked from economic sanctions. Sanctions affecting the basic needs of the Iraqi population and the economic development of Iraqi society should be discontinued, not as a bargaining chip, but because they are and always were inhumane.

Support human rights monitors, tribunals for violations and reward progress by allowing Iraq's reintegration into the international community. Gender, educational, social and health rights, among the best in the region prior to the Gulf War, were violated more by the war and sanctions than anything that Saddam Hussein has done.

Democratic development cannot be conferred by outsiders through war. We must support civil society opposition to Saddam through nonviolent regional and international non-governmental organizations, and nurturing democratic movements within Iraq. Marcos, Milosevic, Suharto, Pinochet and a host of Latin American and Eastern Bloc leaders were overthrown without outside military Intervention.

Support international law, multilateral processes and institutions: the International Criminal Court, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, Landmines Treaty, and even the Kyoto

Protocol to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

These are cheaper, more effective and sustainable alternatives to war. Let's choose them; let's choose peace.