The Security Policy Working Group is a new consortium of NGOs and university researchers. Founded in 2002, the group has expertise in military expenditures, budgeting, strategy, threat assessment, media and conflict, defense contractors, arms control, arms trade, nuclear weapons. For a comprehensive list of SPWG members, and an on-line copy of the SPWG briefing book on policy choices post-9/11, click here or on the logo to the left.

Lucy Webster is Program Director at ECAAR (Economists Allied for Arms Reduction), and she has published widely on the impact of economics on security issues. Before joining ECAAR, she spent 14 years in the United Nations Secretariat, much of it as a political officer in the Department of Disarmament. We talked with her recently about the legality of the invasion of Iraq and the changing attitudes towards international diplomacy and intervention.

Global Beat: Do you think there is a legal basis for the U.S. occupation of Iraq?

Lucy Webster: No, not a legal basis, but I think there may be a humanitarian justification due to the fact that there were so many gross violations of human rights by Saddam Hussein against his own country, against his own people, and against neighboring countries over the years. If the International Criminal Court, which came into force in July 2002 had existed earlier to try individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and if the Security Council had wanted to do something about Saddam Hussein's systematic violation of human rights, one could have justified some sort of legal action to apprehend him. I am not in favor of war, but in the present circumstances without a working legal system, war was probably all that could be made to work to stop Saddam. We need to piece together bits of what has been done that are good and eliminate the excessive violence and stupidity to develop a future system that would work better.

Of course I do not think that regime change for humanitarian reasons in support of human rights was a major motivation behind the United States action, although I think it should have been.

Global Beat: What do you think were the main reasons for the U.S. action?

Lucy Webster: I see three main reasons. First there was and is the fear that a regime such as that of Saddam Hussein would transfer military material, perhaps including weapons of mass destruction, to terrorists. But I think the main objective was to transform the power relationships in the Gulf area and the Middle East in the interest of U.S. and Israeli security. And thirdly there must be a wish to have much more control in an area of the world that accounts for some 700 billion barrels of oil reserves out of the total known world reserves of approximately one trillion.

I don't think there is any evidence that Saddam had real connections to any of the terrorists that we know about, but given that there are various terrorists about and that Iraq probably had some biological and chemical weapons, at least in the past, the idea that he might give weapons to some terrorist group or organization was quite credible. So I think that the United States did have a legitimate security concern there. I don't think you can directly connect Iraq to 9/11, but there was a more general serious security concern, and I believe that people in the U.S. administration did and do care about the human rights of the Iraqi people. Those two factors did in my view justify doing something. However what I want to emphasize is that we need a choice of different "somethings" that the U.S. and the international community can do.

Global Beat: How do you see the situation now?

Lucy Webster: Now that the war has occurred, I think there are certain good things that can be said about it, and many points to criticize. It was prosecuted in a way that was more careful with regard to civilian damage than I have known about before. If you just compare the behavior of United States in this war with the behavior of Britain and Germany in World War II, when bombing Dresden and London was treated as a normal part of their strategy, you see a major change. Now, that sort of indiscriminate destruction of civilian targets is recognized as both wrong and illegal. The United States has seriously tried to avoid doing that sort of thing, which is clearly a step forward.

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is definitely going to be a benefit for the Middle East. One of the issues underlying this whole subject is the importance that you give to state sovereignty as opposed to the rights of the citizens of the world. One of the reasons the French, Russians and Chinese were so opposed to what the United States did was that it was stepping on the sovereignty of Iraq, and thus challenged the territorial integrity of states on which the UN system is based. In terms of the way the UN charter was written and the main concepts of international law at that time, what the U.S. did is definitely illegal, but I think that international law is moving forward in a way that puts the rights of people before the rights of states. Therefore to give sanctimonious attention to the precise voting of the stupidly constructed Security Council and sanctimonious attention to the formal legality that helps to protect the sovereignty of the Iraqi state and government was inappropriate at this point in history.

Global Beat: So you approve?

Lucy Webster: If I had been in the U.S. State Department myself, I would not have wanted to do it this way. I could never approve of war as such, but I can approve of assertive police action. The United States should have asked the Security Council to back military action to apprehend Saddam Hussein for his gross violations of human rights and in relation to the threat he posed to the United States and Israel as evidenced by his failure to allow open access to the Iraqi scientists who might have had information about the weapons of mass destruction that were banned after the first Gulf war. Resting the whole case on cooperation to provide these weapons was probably a mistake. The U.S. did have certain legal rights to individual and collective self defense (Article 51 of the UN Charter) even though Saddam was not part of 9/11 because there is a genuine set of actions that the Security Council has endorsed toproceed against terrorist threats. There is also the jurisdiction delineated by the statute of the International Criminal Court that can lead to Security Council decisions to try anyone who is guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide committed after the ICC came into force on July 1 2002.

Up until now there is no precedent for taking military action to back an indictment based on acts that are prohibited under the ICC. And that is precisely my point. If one is going to expand the realm of international action, this should be done by expanding the definition of what is legal in a way that would serve the people of the world. The United States could take leadership to do this. That is my view on how the longer view policy focus should be envisioned.

But looking at the current situation, some of the action that was taken in Iraq has its good aspects, and we can learn from that. We can learn from the swiftness of the action, the extensive use of Special Forces, the relatively limited dependence on bombing and the care that was taken during the war to avoid civilian targets. Nonetheless there are many, many aspects to criticize, especially regarding the failure to look after the security and essential services of people after the military action ended. We should learn from all these precedents and put positive value on those that have value for people. And we should welcome the fact that the invasion has de facto given greater importance to the rights of the people of Iraq than to the government and the state of Iraq.

Global Beat: What do you think of Paul Wolfowitz' idea of using Iraq as a base for shifting the entire region towards democracy?

Lucy Webster: I think that that could happen. I think his idealism and his optimism is genuine and is not totally misplaced. I also have guarded optimism in that regard. However I think U.S. credibility is greatly marred by our failure to endorse and use the International Criminal Court and our abrogation of various treaties that our allies and others value highly.

At the same time I agree with the evident idea in the administration that forceful action is needed for change in the Persian Gulf and Middle East, but I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot by not using the forms of forceful action that are most likely to gain respect. Here I have in mind both the ICC and also the scope for more creative use of the Security Council and also the General Assembly to take action that protects people from acts of international terrorism and from the terror of governments that rely on torture and fear to control the people.

I do think the United States has been absolutely negligent with regard to Palestine and Israel; so to use our new power in the region to make amends for the injustice that has been done to the Palestinian people over the past half century could be important. It will be good if we can use our new leverage in the region to get things done.

Global Beat:What do you think of the situation in Israel?

Lucy Webster: It has become increasingly out of control. The Palestinians have been at fault, too, but the Israelis have been the most heavy-handed cause of the vicious cycle of distrust and violence. The fact that the United States has not been able to control that has been shameful.

Global Beat:How could we have controlled it?

Lucy Webster: There is a lot of leverage in the money we give to Israel. There are also missed opportunities in terms of education and working with the forces in Israel that favor peace now and that are willing to take more creative approaches than the right wing. Obviously it is difficult to accentuate the positive in Israel without being seen as interfering in a way that could be counterproductive, but the United States does have a great responsibility – not only the United States government, but the nation, the various groups within the U.S. Jewish community that have pushed different policies in Israel, and the U.S. public generally — we all could have done better. It is a big job. It is a big mess. Once the State of Israel was established in Palestine, the governments and nations that were responsible for this had an obligation to insist on proper behavior towards the Palestinians, and that has not been forthcoming over the years.

Global Beat: Is there a downside to what is happening in Iraq?

Lucy Webster: Yes, of course there are major downside issues: all the dead and wounded, the significant numbers of civilian casualties in spite of efforts to avoid indiscriminate harm. These human tragedies and the destruction of large parts of the wealth and the heritage of the Iraqi nation all constitute a major downside. This is why the world needs to forge an alternative to war. Peace with gross injustice as in Saddam’s Iraq is not acceptable, but any war involves vast injustice and pain and loss. We need to put an end to war. We need to find a way to achieve major change for human rights without war.

In fact the world is on the verge of defining means for peaceful change backed by assertive international action. Three main efforts are needed to tip the momentum in that direction:

1. The Security Council must dare to challenge the sovereignty of states that have abrogated their sovereign responsibility when they systematically abuse the rights of their citizens. This can be done within the system established for the implementation of the statutes of the International Criminal Court.

2. The UN needs a directly recruited military force that would report directly to the Secretary-General so that UN Marshals sent in to apprehend a future Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein in Iraq would be able to do their job. Most of the opposition the U.S. military met in Iraq was not against deposing Saddam, but against the apparent attack on the Islamic nation of Iraq. A UN force with Arab and other non-Western generals would not meet the same resistance.

3. Citizens and communities throughout the world need to be engaged in ensuring for themselves the implementation of the norms of international law that could protect them and that offer them richer lives in larger freedom. Success here would have major value for sustainable development and would also help ensure peaceful regime change whenever that might be needed. People who would be more aware of the rights their governments have agreed to support under various UN conventions and programs would be able to work through the NGO networks to alert the Security Council and other decision makers at an early stage if their rights were abused.

There is a lesson in the dedicated behavior of the volunteer profession soldiers of the invading coalition. The same or greater energy for victory and respect for civilians can be expected if UN professional volunteer soldiers are recruited and well trained. And they could come with the language skills that would greatly help them to respect civilians.

One major downside of the war has now come from the stupidity of the planning that did not train the troops to move smoothly from winning the war to keeping the peace. How did anyone think that water and power would be provided when the fighting stopped? How did they think the people and their property would be protected? If the same troops cannot fight and also protect, civilian police units should have been moved in as each neighborhood was won. This is not a casual error of omission, but a deeply embedded behavior that demonstrates that the U.S. planners were not very seriously focused on the needs of the people of Iraq. In a military culture that vows to leave no soldier behind, it should be possible to extend the same level of care to the security of the people one claims to serve.

And now the Peacekeeping Institute located at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania is scheduled for elimination in October 2003. Surely more such facilities should instead be opened, at least unless and until the United States is willing to let the UN do that job.

Global Beat: Who do you think should oversee the reconstruction?

Lucy Webster: I can see both sides of the argument, but I do not think it should be a question of either/or but rather a both/and approach. The U.S. military should maintain security and take responsibility for the transfer of police duties to new Iraqi cadres and/or to UN civilian police units. I think that more should have been done in that regard in Afghanistan. The United States has not provided or facilitated enough security for the people throughout Afghanistan. I hope we will not see that kind of mistake made in Iraq. Power must be passed very quickly to the people of Iraq, but this needs to be done in an orderly fashion, and it seems reasonable that the UN would be best suited to ensure that this is done with fairness and transparency. And the UN is best suited to work with the NGOs that can provide humanitarian relief during the transition to full Iraqi governance. Also, I hope the U.S. will allow and encourage the new government in Iraq to engage the United Nations, the Arab League, the European Union and whoever wants to help to do so. It is important to show that the new Iraq is not just a U.S. invention. It will have been created largely by the United States, but everything possible should be done to prevent it from being a new Iraq for the United States.

The aim should be to create a result in Iraq that lots of people throughout the world can relate to and endorse even if they did not endorse the invasion, or support the way the United States went about it. Afterwards we will need such broad support. Otherwise, how can there be an effective spill over from Iraq to facilitate the development of democracy elsewhere in the region?

Global Beat:Do you think the war in Iraq was largely intended to secure oil resources?

Lucy Webster: I think the main motive was to reconfigure the political structures of the Middle East for the security of the United States and for Israel, but I believe oil was a major concern also.

More than half the known oil reserves in the world are probably in Iraq and Saudi Arabia — although the official figures lead to lower estimates. Out of an estimated one trillion barrels in the known world reserves, almost 600 billion are probably in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Not only are these quantities impressive, but the quality is stunning. Middle East oil is orders of magnitude better than any other oil in terms of ease of access and the economy of the refining processes needed. These facts tend to tell their own story. At the moment that it became totally clear to the United States that Saudi Arabia could not be trusted following 9/11, it was also known less clearly that Iraq was weak militarily and under pressure from internal dissention and external criticism. Consequently, if there was a newly perceived risk that Saudi oil might be inaccessible either because the Saudi government no longer workedclosely with the United States, or because it did work with the U.S. and was then overthrown, some other source of high quality sizable reserves was needed.

Global Beat:What about Iraq tilting towards Israel.

Lucy Webster: Mostly the U.S. administration wants a model for the Palestinian Authority, and I think that is a legitimate objective. The Palestinians certainly need help in establishing legitimacy, but it is difficult when many of the efforts they make to secure their lives and homes are undermined by the Israeli government and when a majority of the people in Arab and Islamic countries deeply distrust the United States, especially following its invasion of Iraq. It is a messy situation, but I do think that anything that creates a competent, democratic system within the broader region will have a positive effect on the other parts of the region.

Global Beat: So you were skeptical to start with, but seeing how it all worked out, you feel positive now.

Lucy Webster: I am definitely against invasions. I was very, very critical of the bombing of Kosovo. I felt that it was not only illegal in a formal sense, but, more importantly, it also helped Milosevic to push the Kosovars out of their own homes and villages, and was therefore counterproductive. But this action, this invasion of Iraq, which is certainly illegal in the narrowest sense of the term, does I believe provide a certain measure of human justice that in my opinion relates to a wider concept of legitimacy. Certainly the invasion provides many lessons on what should and should not be done in the future and includes some lesions for the sort of international peace-making capacity that I would wish to see in the UN. But mostly I think we should learn preventive diplomacy and learn to use the rule of law to prevent war. The fact that the International Criminal Court system provides a basis for taking action against individuals without going to war can open up new possibilities for the implementation of international humanitarian law.

Global Beat: Do you think that the rights of Turkey should supersede the rights of the Kurds at this point?

Lucy Webster: I think the international norm in favor of keeping state boundaries is appropriate in this situation. Keeping the boundaries of Iraq as they have been is appropriate. In an ideal world, I would be in favor of an independent Kurdistan, but that would certainly be a mistake now. The people in southeastern Turkey, many of whom are Kurds who have been treated very badly by the government of Turkey, would want to secede to join a new Kurdistan if it were next door. One cannot endorse that idea because there is a measure of stability in keeping the boundaries of nation states where they are at this point in history. I think it is encouraging that the Kurds in Iraq who have had considerable autonomy over the last ten years under the U.S. no-fly zone are willing to work for a reasonable amount of autonomy within the new Iraq. They are not calling for independence, because that would be a direct threat to the territorial integrity of Turkey, and would thus put the Kurds in Northern Iraq at risk of Turkish military action against them.
 

* * *