The case against Saddam Hussein

New York-based publisher Paul Piccone looks at the realities surrounding War on Iraq

Paul Piccone is the editor of Telos Press based in New York City. Before that, he taught for many years at Washington University in St. Louis. He has dealt extensively with politics and foreign relations, especially those between Canada and the U.S. Telos was founded in 1968 in order "to provide the New Left with a coherent theoretical perspective." Since the collapse of the New Left, however, it has continued to develop critical perspectives on North America and Europe. The journals and the books it publishes seek to shed light on new geopolitical realities and today's growing cultural contradictions.
Paul spoke with Tandem and shared his insights into the realities of the War on Iraq.
What have you done in terms of publishing that relates to what is going on with this war on Iraq?
"Well, for example, we just published the English translation of a 1950 classic by Carl Schmitt, the 20th century's foremost German jurist and expert on international law, The Nomos of the Earth, which already prefigured the possible implications of the end of the Cold War. Half a century later, it appears to have been extremely prophetic. Among other things, he talks about the decline of the State and, as a consequence, the decline of national sovereignty, the changing character of war, and new modes of conflictuality - including guerrilla warfare, terrorism etc. There is a long discussion of the history and failure of the League of Nations, which pretty closely parallels what is happening now with the UN and other international organizations predicated on the international stalemate generated by post-WWII bipolarism. This state of affairs still remains unclear - or at least unacceptable - to many heads of state such as Chirac or Schroeder, not to mention ordinary people in general, who still insist on relying on obsolete and ineffective institutions for solving New World problems."
So, what is the war on Iraq really about?
"It is about settling old scores and vigorously implementing this new foreign policy agenda. Already at the end of the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein had defied the U.S. and the UN, and had been in flagrant violation of the terms of the peace agreement. The older Bush's administration should have taken decisive action at that time - especially since by then it had realized the implications of its major blunder in not taking out Saddam when it could have, and of restructuring Iraq in a way conducive to stability in the Middle East. It simply did not have the necessary political will and vision, in an international context violently opposed to financing and supporting any more wars. It was assumed that over time the problem would simply go away. It did not. Rather, it became much more serious with the growth of Al Quaida.
"Thus the war in Iraq is the result of a number of factors, such as the foreign policy indecisiveness of the 1990s, the realization of the implications of the new world order for international stability and the safety of the West in general and the U.S. in particular, and the attempt to compensate for a whole series of past American foreign policy blunders."
What about the war on terrorism?
"This is one of the most misunderstood developments following 9/11. Historically, terrorism was regarded as the kind of war waged by those who were desperate and had no other way to defend their interests or fight oppression. It was a tool used by the Israeli before the founding of Israel, by the Americans during the revolutionary war, and by all of the so-called Third World liberation movements as well as by those against whom it was aimed (recall the atrocities of the Algerian War). In the era of nation-states, it was usually deployed to establish new nations and break with oppressive occupations by foreign powers. In that sense, terrorism retained a minimal dignity and legitimacy, which after the success of the movements employing it was redefined as 'patriotism.' In the changed world following 1989 this account no longer makes sense and in the 21st century terrorism takes on an altogether new character. It threatens a return to the kind of bellum omnia contra omnium, which in the 16th century, following the religious civil wars, precipitated the creation of nation-states to put an end to these conflicts by depoliticizing religious factions. Today the new terrorism threatens to bring about an even more destructive global civil war.
"As immediate responses to an unprecedented situation are understandable, the new American precautionary measures are not only ineffective but very costly and disruptive of everyday practice. On the positive side, however, the real solution is becoming increasingly obvious: citizens' awareness."
There has been much talk about the destabilization of the Middle East. What is likely to happen?
"The Middle East has been destabilized for a long while already. Local regimes are all problematic in some ways. Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive and was indirectly responsible for financing 9/11; Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic state opposed to everything the West stands for; Syria has been responsible for perpetuating the violence in Israel and Palestine, and blocking any efforts to bring peace to the area; Turkey is a secular state, bursting with fundamentalist Muslim at the seem and terminally committed to the eventual (and practically unavoidable) establishment of a Kurdistan, etc. Had it not been for the importance of oil for the world economy, the whole area would have been left to fester in its own fanaticism and inability to modernize. In fact, its very power is a function of its oil reserves. Now, in the new world order, the U.S. may talk about democratization and modernization until it is blue in the face, but nothing significant will happen until the Arabs themselves figure out how they would like to enter the 21st century. The best that can be hoped for in the post-Saddam era is that these Arab regimes finally realize their limitations and, while reaping all the economic benefits resulting from participating in a globalized world market, gradually figure out ways to separate religion and politics, thus paving the way for a radical modernization of their institutions and lifestyles. Religious fanaticism and collective ignorance cannot justify living in misery and deprivation. Long ago, the Arab world was the acme of civilization. There is no reason why it cannot be that once again."
There have been discussions concerning the Iraqi oil. What is likely to happen with that when the war ends?
"Of course, there are powerful particular interests involved here, such as competition between the U.S., France and Russia. In the long run, however, i.e., after the political situation has been stabilized, it does not matter very much. As long as the oil market remains competitive and there are no longer any sustained efforts to help this economic lever for questionable political objectives, it does not matter much which companies run it. All these oil companies are multinational, French capitalists can invest in U.S. as well as Russian companies as much as any American or Russian citizens, and in a relatively free market, profitability and production are likely to achieve the kind of stability to be found in, e.g., multinational pharmaceutical industries. This is what stabilization ultimately means: globalization plus controls to prevent private parties from destroying essential market mechanisms."
How about Canada?
"Canada's behaviour during the past few months has been indecisive and mechanical, allegedly in support of the U.S., while buying into all the bogus ideological delusions of France and Germany. Today's Canadian government lacks any vision of its possible role in the world, and continues indulging in the self-delusion of itself as the knight in shining amour bringing peace everywhere, while defending 'good' against the evil. This is a luxury that was once possible because its unavoidable dependence on the U.S. Staying out of the fray because the UN has not backed the Iraqi operation is a cowardly maneuvre designed to benefit from the results of the U.S. efforts while not contributing anything significant. Canadians often forget the extent to which their fate is inextricably tied to that of the U.S. Its cherished self-image of 'kindness and gentleness' was quaint and acceptable as long as, when push came to shove - as in WWI and WWII - Canadians did not shy away from their responsibility. By not supporting the U.S., even in the minimalist way of Spain, Italy, Bulgaria and the rest of Eastern Europe, the Canadian government has simply paved the way for more friction with the U.S., while reaping only faint and useless praise from traditionally anti-American quarters."
Has Canada's decision not to go to war been the result of the UN's decision and of Canada's historical role as a peace-making country?
"The Canadian government cannot be so naïve as to believe that an institution such as the UN, brought about to help manage the Cold War, but from the very beginning instrumentalized by the U.S. to legitimate its often questionable foreign policy decisions during the past half century, has any but a subsidiary role in a new world dominated by one superpower now confronted with new and unprecedented international threats. This is all the more surprising since Canada has had its own problems with terrorism, and its lackadaisical response has only made things worse. There is nothing wrong with being peacekeepers. It is only when this peacekeeping becomes an excuse for inaction in the face of global threats such as the new kind of terrorism that it turns into international irresponsibility and opportunism. After all, Canadians know very well that whatever the U.S. will be able to achieve with its latest military efforts will benefit Canada as much as the U.S. and the rest of the world."
What are the political implications of Canada's decision to stay out of the war?
"On the whole, it will not have any impact on the final outcome of the conflict. The U.S. will get rid of Saddam no matter who may dislike it, and make sure that the 21st century will be free of 'rogue states' and terrorism. Had Canada and 'the old Europe' smelled the coffee and accepted the New World order - something that, much to their embarrassment, they will have to once the war is over - it would have made the U.S. role much easier. As it is, they have managed to provide Saddam with the illusion that there may have been some other possible solution to his removal, were the 'old Europe' to prevail and perpetuate ad infinitum the inspections and, therefore, its regime. In practical terms, this means that Iraq will put up much more resistance to U.S. operations, resulting in a much greater loss of life and destruction, in the idealistic effort to seek a different outcome. Thus, today, Canada's 'peacekeeping' delusions are having rather counterproductive consequences."
How is the UN finished?
"What is the function of an international institution such as the UN, that cannot do anything to prevent massacres anywhere in the world (unless the U.S. steps in and does the dirty work), cannot enforce its resolutions, pretends that two bit countries such as Gabon and Cameroon can have as much weight as the U.S. or even Canada, and wastes immense amounts of resources to have washed-out bureaucrats put out to pasture in New York to debate forever issues that they are unable to do anything about? If in the age of instant communication and globalized markets, of major power imbalances and rising irreconcilable world-views (religious fundamentalisms), national sovereignty is greatly diminished, what is the use of an organization predicated on autonomous nation-states that no longer exist? There is definitely a need for international mediation organizations, but the UN is not one of them. Its fate is that of the old League of Nations - another bankrupt international institution predicated on the false premises of the Versailles Treaty."
Well, if we think about when the UN was discussing International Criminal Law, and the U.S. refused to sign, was the U.S. already planning to go to war, even against world opinion?
"What world opinion? Does world opinion reduce to vocal and uninformed street demonstrators trying to deal with issues that, by and large, do not affect them directly? 'World opinion' in Toronto or Paris does not understand what 9/11 has meant for the U.S. It also does not understand that the U.S. is determined to prevent any further 9/11 no matter what. American security cannot be held hostage to a 'world opinion' that has not understood any of the disastrous lessons of the 20th century. Of course, the U.S. had already decided to go to war long before the UN discussions took place. The decision had been taken immediately after 9/11. After that it was only a matter of how and when, not of if. As for International Law, the U.S. has never agreed to submit to any higher tribunal that could threaten its interests and security, and it probably never will, as long as the international situation remains as unstable as it is now. The kind of federation that the UN seemed to be modeled after is impossible as long as the preconditions for it are lacking, e.g., relatively concrete rather than purely formal equality among its members."
Around the world there has been thousands, millions of people protesting against this war.
"Similarly, there are millions of people that understand what is really at stake: that not doing anything would amount to repeating the mistakes leading to the catastrophe of WWII. At that time there were also voices claiming that Hitler was only another leader with his own peculiar views, that he should be left alone, and that he should have been allowed to claim substantial parts of Czechoslovakia and Poland to protect local German populations. Even in the case of the Vietnam war, probably one of the worst examples one can provide, the outcome - presumably what the vociferous and otherwise minor 'world opinion' desired - has been disastrous, and it will take that country decades to create the kind of society that was well on the way of being created in the 1960s. Compare Taiwan, or Japan, or South Korea with Vietnam or Cuba. What would this Marxisant 'world opinion' say about? The bottom line, in this case, is essentially much more oppression and suffering for the Vietnam population. The real question to be asked is what will cause more long-term harm: putting up with a increasingly powerful and nuclear Saddam or getting rid of him? For the U.S. the answer is clear. It should also have been clear for Canada."
Were there not any other options, other than going to war?
"No."
In the first Gulf war, didn't the Iraqi people look to Bush for help, and he rejected/or was not willing to do so?
"There is no question about the blunders made by the older Bush's Administration. He should have provided support for the Kurds and the Sunni Moslems in Southern Iraq, safeguarded their autonomy, while marginalizing Saddam in Baghdad. Under those conditions, its own people could have removed Saddam. Because of Turkey's concern over the potential creation of a Kurdistan and President's Bush's own miscalculations about the possibility for stability in the Middle East, a whole series of wrong decisions were made, for which the U.S. is now paying a steep price. But what is done is done and at this point in time it is useless to keep attacking the older Bush's foreign policy blunders."
Isn't one of the reasons for peace is to avoid that civilians and military people get killed - to avoid human casualties?
"Yes, but sometimes attempting to achieve peace in an impossible situation may result in higher costs later on. Had Hitler been stopped on its track earlier, the millions of victims of WWII may have avoided their tragic fate. Saddam has already resulted in the death of thousands of people - many of which were its own citizens. There is no evidence whatsoever that he will not do the same on a grander scale in the future, were he to decide to do so. He is already the world leading war criminal. Why wait until he commits more atrocities? In this particular case, 'uncritical peace' would have meant even more civilian and military casualties than a preventive war."
In the stabilization of Iraq after the war, who should be doing the stabilization?
"It does not matter all that much, as long as there is real stabilization. If there was a strong UN willing and able to do the job, they obviously could undertake the task. Even the French, despite their historical ineptness in Vietnam, Algeria and elsewhere in Africa, could take on such a task if they could guarantee any modicum of success. As things stand now, there do not seem to be too many international institutions up to the task. Even Canada, despite its peacekeeping record, may not be able to step in, unless it accepts the fact that there may be a lot of shooting in the process of stabilizing the region - even after the war is over."

Publication Date: 2003-04-06
Story Location: http://tandemnews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=2584