I wish I had Victor Catano's certainty (President's Column, Bulletin, May 2003) in opposing the recent Iraqi war, and urging that the UN replace the Americans in supervising Iraq's reconstruction. Though not without hesitations, I hold opposing views on both, from a progressive perspective.
The war likely was illegal. So too was Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor two decades ago. So too would have been any pre-emptive attack on Germany prior to 1939. Legality is not the ultimate criterion for moral or prudent conduct. International law is beginning to modify the supremacy of sovereignty, reflecting a new discourse on human rights.
My support for the use of force to oust Saddam was clinched by reading reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others detailing the appalling scope and depth of the horrors of Saddam's regime, going back to his taking power in 1979.
Critics of the war offered a perfunctory acknowledgment of the brutality of Saddam's police state while passionately listing reasons for their opposition. The scenes of mass graves being reopened and thousands of Iraqis desperately trying to find traces of their missing relatives - some estimates as high as 300,000 - simply confirm the horrors described in those reports.
There was no other option but military force which would likely rid the Iraqis of this monstrous regime. Not sanctions, not inspections. I asked myself: if I were a professor trying to survive in Saddam's Iraq, what would I want? The answer was clear.
Most of the dire predictions about repercussions of the war have so far not come about. To the contrary, the war has concentrated the minds of other brutal regimes, notably the Baath rulers of Syria, to consider playing a constructive role in the region, liberalizing at home and curtailing their support for terror. At the same time, the war has so far revived the previously stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
The idea of handing the task of controlling Iraq to the UN is frightening. Consider the litany of UN failures when faced with major tasks of preventing violence and restoring order and civil society. The horror in Congo is only the most recent, tragic case. Better to let the Americans and British stay in charge while using the expertise of UN agencies as needed.
A post-Saddam Iraq can emerge representing a synthesis of the best of Islamic/Arab civilization with elements of liberalism and democracy. Of course, this can all backfire. Instead of a liberal democracy, a Shia theocracy could take root. Saddam, if he is alive, and his remaining loyalist thugs could try to stage a comeback. Patience and firm resolve are needed. German de-Nazification trials and efforts, to eradicate a 12-year regime, lasted until the early 1950s. The Baathist dictatorship began in 1968.
Accidents and tragedies happen during war. Professor Catano is right. Americans should have done more to forestall the looting of Iraqi museums, universities and hospitals. Yet consider the billions looted by Saddam and his family and cronies, spent on dozens of lavish palaces and secret weapons programs, or stashed in foreign bank accounts.
Canadian academics and their universities should do all they can to reinvigorate Iraqi higher education. Perhaps CAUT can play a role in the restoration of academic freedom, and in the rebuilding of the universities. Better that than to hector the Americans and British into leaving prematurely, which would be disastrous.
Morton Weinfeld
Chair in Canadian Ethnic Studies, Sociology, McGill University