Reuters Photos
Three of the key players in the Iraq war crisis. From left, British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, and United States Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld.Stephen Vasciannie, Contributor
THE PROSPECT of an American attack on Iraq has drawn many onlookers in the direction of certainty. Perhaps this is because the White House has been steadily beating the war drums since the 'Axis of Evil' speech; perhaps it is because the post-September 11 world has cast wishy-washy perspectives in a negative light; or, alternatively, it is because our globalised environment is one in which we are bombarded with messages requiring us to take positions, one way or another.
But, in any event, the war context has prompted many of us to take a stand for or against unilateral action on the part of the United States, leaving little room for analytical uncertainty. This is not an altogether desirable state of affairs: certainly has its virtues, but, sometimes it forces protagonists to ignore valid points on the other side, and prompts an inflexible mindset that may ultimately skew judgement and integrity.
In the current debate about whether unilateral action against Iraq is politically justifiable, several strands of analysis, or even schools of thoughts, have come to the fore. In some instances, these schools of thought overlap, and are, therefore, not mutually exclusive, but nonetheless distinct patterns are identifiable. In no special order of priority, we may identify, for instance, the Conspiracy School. Members of this school adhere firmly to the view that American pronouncements on the need to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction, as well as chemical and biological weapons, are insincere.
For persons in this school, the real reason for the proposed attack is oil. Iraq, they note consistently, sits atop some of the largest reserves of oil on the planet, and the United States earnestly wishes to take control of these supplies for strategic purposes. Never mind, then, that Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a tendency to violate United Nations norms on the use of force; the crucial issue is that which gushes forth.
Some Conspiracy School denizens adds a variation to the theme of oil. They argue that the issue of American hegemony is closely related to America's desire to control the world's petroleum supplies. And so, for them, the United States wishes to attack Iraq to confirm its economic and military superiority in the world; from this perspective, the issue is not so much that Saddam Hussein may be a maverick seeking access to weapons of mass destruction, but rather that the United States needs to shore up the foundations of the Pax Americana through the use of force upon those who would dare to challenge them.
THE CONSPIRACY SCHOOL
Some who adhere to the main tenets of the Conspiracy School keep a broader church. Members in this sub-category start with the presumption that the oil-seeking Americans must always be viewed with suspicion, even when no oil-related issues arise. In some contexts, members of this sub-category are described as Anti-Americans (usually by Republicans), but it is a title that they would not accept.
For this sub-category of the Conspiracy School, then, the current war cries from Washington are nourished largely by the military-industrial complex, the cynical senior soldiers and capitalists who need a war every now and then to justify military expenditure at stratospheric levels. Within this perspective, too, is the view that international wars are really fought with local constituents in mind, and that, in the case of Iraq, what is really happening is that George W needs to take on Saddam Hussein in order to complete the task that George Senior started, but did not finish.
Exponents of this perspective are also inclined to the view that George W needs this war so that American voters will forget that he 'stole' the presidency with the help of the Supreme Court (on the plausible assumption that war stimulates popularity). If pressed, some Conspiracy School analysts maintain, too, what is happening in the United Nations over Iraq is analogous to American abuse with respect to Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, and so on; for them, there is no point in paying attention to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice (who are at best front persons), and the media, with the possible exception of al Jazeera and maybe the Guardian, sold out long ago.
The Bureaucrats constitute another school of thought. These are people who, when faced with the complexities of the Iraqi situation, seek refuge in the arms of the only bureaucracy that can address the issues multilaterally, namely, the United Nations Security Council. For those from the Bureaucratic School, American military action against Iraq will be unjustifiable unless, and until, it is sanctioned by the Security Council.
Implicit in the approach taken by the Bureaucrats is the view that the Security Council has the means, and the objectivity, to analyse and resolve the crisis in a way that will promote world order and ensure fairness to the protagonists. In other words, it seems to escape the attention of the Bureaucrats that the Security Council may itself be divided, and that the presence of the veto powers at the Council may produce eccentric results not least because some permanent members make decisions on the basis of national interest, rather than with reference to the concerns of the international community.
LEGALISM
The Legalists form a sub-category of the Bureaucratic School. The Legalists maintain, and sometimes pontificate, that the question of Iraq should be resolved in a manner consistent with the Law of Nations. With the possible exception of those with a brief to the contrary and a few others, most members of the Legalist sub-category note that American use of force without the authorisation of the Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter would be contrary to the Law.
From this foundation, the Legalists join the other Bureaucrats in giving deference to the Security Council. One problem with this approach, though, is that it hides behind procedure. There are serious questions about how the world should respond to the distinct possibility that Iraq has an active programme of weapons development contrary to various Security Council resolutions, and difficult questions of motive have been directed at the United States; in this context, it may be inadequate for the Bureaucrats simply to leave matters to the Security Council, without more.
Two final schools stand in need of attention. The first consists of the Humanitarians, persons who argue that an attack on Iraq is unjustifiable because it would bring untold misery to thousands, if not millions of Iraqi nationals. And these nationals, it must be noted, would be innocent in the way many of the victims of the unspeakable World Trade Centre attacks on September 11, were innocent.
This school also derives much of its force from the fact that Iraqi authorities play an inordinate role in the lives of most nationals. According to The Economist (for February 8-14), about 60 per cent of the population of Iraq, or 16 million people, are 100 per cent dependent on the central Government; hence, even if the targets for attacks are agencies of the State, the broad mass of the people are likely to be detrimentally affected. The fact should counsel caution on the part of the militarists.
COUNTERFACTUALS
On the other hand, the Humanitarian School needs to come to terms with at least two stark counterfactuals. One is what would happen if force is not used against Iraq? Could this not lead to the prospect of a greater conflagration down the road, and is it not this fear which prompted the Security Council to pass particular resolutions barring Iraqi weapons development? Secondly, if Saddam Hussein is, in fact, able to defy the Security Council with impunity, would this not create a precedent for other countries? The American insistence on military action against Iraq has tended to crowd out the fact that the Security Council's own credibility will be at stake if the Iraqi Government is allowed, after 12 years of resolutions, apparently to deny the will of the United Nations.
Finally, there is the Supporters School, which consists essentially of those who believe that a military attack is currently justified. Some of the arguments relied on by the Supporters School are implicit in the foregoing discussion; but, for the avoidance of doubt, supporters would wish to emphasise that the behaviour of Iraqi scientists, and the evidence presented by Colin Powell on February 5, suggest that Iraq does, in fact, have a weapon development programme in place.
The most serious problem for the supporters though is the precedent that an attack on Iraq would set for the future. If the United States, working only with Britain and some other NATO allies, may attack Iraq, killing thousands of people, without United Nations approval, why would anyone in the world feel safe from a future attack by the Americans?
In this case, it may well be that Saddam Hussein's action create the foundation for an attack, but if that is so, then the Supporters need to demonstrate more clearly the rules which justify attacking Iraq. This, I believe, is the only way the Supporters will be able to overcome the doubts arising from the other schools of thought.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law at the University of the West Indies, Mona campus. 
