The Iraq war's main consequences will not be on the battlefield. They will come later, and will depend on whether US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair can justify their onslaught on a largely defenseless population. They launched this war for certain declared reasons, all of which were heatedly debated around the world. If they are vindicated, then the war could conceivably bring a safer world. If their arguments remain unproved or are disproved, then the war will incite instability. In that case, a critical step toward healing the world would be their quick departure from office.
The war was not and could not be justified to the world on the basis that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. Justification, if it exists, rests on the danger Saddam's regime posed. Bush and Blair made four claims -- Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction; those weapons pose a grave, immediate threat; UN inspections were not eliminating that threat; the threat could best be eliminated by war.
The first claim will be the easiest to verify. Bush and Blair talked repeatedly about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, massive underground and mobile units to produce or launch such wea-pons and active programs to obtain nuclear weapons. It is incumbent upon Bush and Blair to prove their case, and to prove it in the face of worldwide suspicion that the US and UK security agencies might plant phony evidence. For this reason, independent UN experts should assess any evidence that is uncovered. If no evidence is produced of weapons of mass destruction on a threatening scale, then both Bush and Blair would deserve to be finished politically, no matter what else happens in Iraq.
The second claim will be trickier to prove. Bush and Blair must show that any weapons of mass destruction that are recovered posed a grave and urgent threat. We know that Iraq at one time possessed chemical and biological weapons, because the US sold them to Iraq. The test is not whether traces of those weapons remain, but whether those weapons were poised for use in threatening amounts.
If the Iraqis launch an attack with such weapons, this would demonstrate that the weapons were ready for use. Whether they posed any real threat outside Iraq's borders, or would have been used in the absence of the current war, must still be assessed.
The third claim is hugely contentious. Bush and Blair should demonstrate that the UN inspection process was failing. This can be done by showing that the Iraqis were simply hiding the evidence at sites visited by the inspectors and declared free of weapons. There should be a systematic review of sites that were visited. There should also be an explanation, if weapons of mass destruction are uncovered at other sites, as to why the inspectors could not have found such weapons in a realistic period of time.
The fourth claim will be subject to wild propaganda on both sides. Was the war justified in terms of costs and benefits, and was war really the last resort? This will depend on an objective assessment of the costs of the war in terms of loss of life, destruction of property, economic impact within Iraq, spillovers into other forms of violence such as terrorism, and geopolitical consequences.
To date, Bush and Blair have failed to make the case to the world, with the partial exception of their own countries. The American people have been treated to a spectacle of jingoism, fear mongering, confusion of Iraq with Osama bin Laden's terrorists, and simple patriotism.
None of this has swayed the rest of the world, which views the war with a mixture of disdain and alarm. This would change if evidence on the four points is mustered.
When the 13 British colonies in North America launched their own War of Independence, Thomas Jefferson understood that "the decent respect to the opinions of mankind" required an explanation for that war, which he set forth in the Declaration of Independence. The need for such an explanation, backed by rigorous evidence, is no less necessary today.
If the arguments for this war are not proved, the consequences will be profound. Propaganda, streets lined with cheering Iraqis, amazement over the prowess of US smart bombs, would not distract us from an awful truth -- that Bush and Blair broke the world peace, engaged in massive premeditated killing, and did so against overwhelming global opinion. Healing today's divided world could start only with fresh political leadership in both the US and UK, and a strong assertion of UN authority.
Given the terrible costs, I hope that this war will prove justified, though I have my doubts based on the current evidence. If compelling evidence proves that weapons of mass destruction were at hand; that they were poised for use on a threatening scale; that the UN inspectors had poor prospects of uncovering and dismantling those weapons, then we must acknowledge the arguments made by Bush and Blair. Even in those circumstances, war might well have been unwise compared to a policy of containment. Still, the war would then at least have made some sense. The horrors of a completely senseless war are indeed almost too frightening to contemplate.
Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS