The Iraq War and Its Consequences

Thoughts of Nobel Peace Laureates and Eminent Scholars

Irwin Abrams, Gungwu Wang

• Publisher: WSPC
• Year: 2003
• Print ISBN: 9789812385901
• eBook ISBN: 9789814338103
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: 21st Century History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

An extraordinary collection of essays on the recently concluded Iraq War by Nobel Peace laureates and leading scholars. The Iraq War and its Consequences is the First and Only book that brings together more than 30 Nobel Peace laureates and eminent scholars to offer opinions, analyses and insights on the war that has drawn both widespread opposition and strong support.

In this intellectually captivating book, Professor Irwin Abrams, considered the leading authority world-wide on the history of the Nobel Peace Prize and Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at Antioch University, as well as Professor Wang Gungwu, renowned historian and Director of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore, have collected works of notable laureates and scholars from diverse backgrounds. The Nobel Peace laureates and eminent scholars, together, expound on the consequences and impacts of the Iraq War — an effort that has not been made before. In conclusion, there are two sermons by Gunnar Stålsett, Bishop of Oslo.

The Prominent Contributors are:

Nobel Peace Laureates

Tenzin Gyatso (The Fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet, 1989)

David Trimble (MP, Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, UK, 1998)

Jody Williams (International Ambassador of International Campaign to Ban Landmines, USA, 1997)

Sir Joseph Rotblat (Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, UK, 1995)

Jose Ramos-Horta (Foreign Minister of East Timor, 1996)

Frederik Willem de Klerk (Former President of South Africa, 1993)

Mairead Corrigan Maguire (Co-founder, Community of Peace People, Northern Ireland, UK, 1976)

Bernard Lown (Co-founder, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, 1985)

Peter Hansen (Commissioner-General, United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UN, 1945)

Irene Khan (Sec-General, Amnesty International, 1977)

Mary Ellen McNish (Executive Secretary, American Friends Service Committee, USA, 1947)

Brian Philips of Oxford Brookes University (Quaker Peace and Social Witness, UK, 1947)

Cora Weiss, President (Permanent International Peace Bureau, 1910)

Christian Dominice (Sec-General, Institute of International Law, 1904)

Eminent Scholars

Noam Chomsky (Prominent Political Critic, Professor of Linguistics, MIT)

Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel laureate in Economics 2001, Columbia University)

Richard A Falk (Albert G Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus, Princeton University)

Sir John Daniel (UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Education)

John W Dower (Pulitzer Prize winner & Elting E. Morison Professor of History, MIT)

Eric Stover (Director of Human Rights Center, UC Berkeley)

Frank N von Hippel (Professor of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University)

Lord Colin Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Director of McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge University)

William Hartung (Director of Institute's Arms Trade Resource Center, World Policy Institute)

Benjamin R Foster (Professor of Assyriology and Curator of the Yale Babylonian Collection, Yale University)

Svetlana Broz (Sarajevo Cardiologist, Author and Lecturer)

Faleh A Jabar (Iraq specialist and Research Fellow, Birkbeck College, London University)

Lisa Martin (Professor of Government, Harvard University)

Helena Cobban (Middle-East Specialist and Columnist for Christian Science Monitor)

Mahmood Mamdani (Director of Institute of African Studies, Columbia University)

Rosemary Foot (Professor of International Relations, Modern History, Oxford University)

Robin Lakoff (Professor of Linguistics, UC Berkeley)

Roland Paris (Political Science and International Affairs, University of Colorado at Boulder)

Contents:

• The Post-Cold War and the Unipolar World: Can the US Lead?
• American Leadership in a Globalised World: 9/11, Iraq and Beyond
• The Hidden Costs of War: How the Bush Doctrine is Undermining Democracy in Iraq and Democracy in America
• Iraq: Educational Renewal for an Arab Renaissance?
• Missing in Action: The Iraq Museum and the Human Past
• Iraq: Collective Punishment in War and Peace
• The Iraq War and the Dialogue Among Civilizations
• and many other articles

Readership: Laypersons and academics.

PART I

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNERS

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNERS:
INDIVIDUALS

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet NOBEL PEACE LAUREATE 1989

Tibetans believe that, in the person of Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama has come to them for the fourteenth time. To devout Tibetans, he is the reincarnation so enlightened that he could ascend to the highest spiritual state but instead, to serve his people, he has returned again and again to take rebirth. The following is the English translation of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's statement to the Buddhist devotees on the first day of the Great Prayer Festival, March 11, 2003, in Dharamsala. The prayer session was held in view of the threat of war in Iraq. The statement is translated and issued by the Department of Information and International Relations, Central Tibetan Administration (Dharamsala, India).

War is Anachronistic, An Outmoded Approach

War, or the kind of organized fighting, is something that came with the development of human civilization. It seems to have become part and parcel of human history or human temperament. At the same time, the world is changing dramatically. We have seen that we cannot solve human problems by fighting. Problems resulting from differences in opinion must be resolved through the gradual process of dialogue. Undoubtedly, wars produce victors and losers, but only temporarily. Victory or defeat resulting from wars cannot be long-lasting.

Secondly, our world has become so interdependent that the defeat of one country must impact the rest of the word, or cause all of us to suffer losses either directly or indirectly.

Today, the world is so small and so interdependent that the concept of war has become anachronistic, an outmoded approach. As a rule, we always talk about reforms and changes. Among the old traditions, there are many aspects that are either ill-suited to our present reality or are counterproductive due to their short-sightedness. These, we have consigned to the dustbin of history. War too should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Unfortunately, although we are in the 21st century, we still have not been able to get rid of the habit of our older generations. I am talking about the belief or confidence that we can solve our problems with arms. It is because of this notion that the world continues to be dogged by all kinds of problems.

But what can we do? What can we do when big powers have already made up their minds? All we can do is to pray for a gradual end to the tradition of wars. Of course, the militaristic tradition may not end easily. But, let us think of this. If there were bloodshed, people in positions of power, or those who are responsible, will find safe places; they will escape the consequent hardship. They will find safety for themselves, one way or the other. But what about the poor people, the defenseless people, the children, the old and infirm. They are the ones who will have to bear the brunt of devastation. When weapons are fired, the result will be death and destruction. Weapons will not discriminate between the innocent and guilty. A missile, once fired, will show no respect to the innocent, poor, defenseless, or those worthy of compassion. Therefore, the real losers will be the poor and defenseless, the ones who are completely innocent, and those who lead a hand-to-mouth existence.

On the positive side, we now have people volunteer medical care, aid, and other humanitarian assistance in war-torn regions. This is a heart-winning development of the modern age.

Let us pray that there be no war at all, if possible. However, if a war does break out, let us pray that there be minimum bloodshed and hardship.

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet

Importance of Nonviolence and Harmony

These days, when television and other media tend to focus on conflicts between people and nations we may sometimes forget that we human beings are part of one great human family. All human beings are basically the same, wherever we come from, whether we are rich or poor, educated or uneducated, following this religion or that, believers or nonbelievers. As human beings, we are all fundamentally the same emotionally, mentally and physically. There may be a few small differences in the shape of our noses, the colour of our hair and so on, but these are insignificant; basically, we are the same. We all have the same potential to undergo both positive and negative experiences. We all have a most remarkable quality, the ability to develop infinite altruism and compassion and a brain capable of unlimited knowledge and understanding. This intelligence needs to be used in the right way, for it is also capable of unlimited destruction. Most important, we have the same potential to transform our attitudes. And this is what I think is essential: to recognise that we can each transform ourselves into a better, happier person.

I believe that life is meant to bring us happiness. Negative actions always bring pain and sorrow, but constructive action brings us pleasure and joy. The most important thing is transforming our minds. In our daily lives compassion is most effective. We all want to be happy and one of the most important foundations for happiness is mental peace. From my own limited experience I have found that the greatest inner tranquility comes from the development of love and compassion. The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater our own sense of well being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. This helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacle we encounter. It is the ultimate source of success in life.

As individuals what is particularly important is that we develop a kind heart, a sense of love, compassion and respect for others. I believe it is important that issues like working for peace in the world do not merely remain the business of politicians and diplomats; we should all be involved. The shape of the future is of great interest to all of us. I am convinced that even if only a few individuals try to create mental peace and happiness within themselves and act responsibly and kindheartedly towards others, they will have a positive influence in their community.

The twentieth century was marred by conflict and war. Therefore, it is especially important that we take steps to ensure that this new century will be characterized instead by nonviolence and dialogue, the preconditions of peaceful coexistence. I do not imagine that we will ever create a human society in which differences and conflicts do not occur, but we have to develop confidence that dialogue and the support of friends are a valid alternative to violence in all our relations.

I am not an expert in these affairs, but I am quite sure that if problems can be discussed according to nonviolent principles with a calm mind, keeping in view the longterm safety of the world, then various solutions can be found. Of course, in particular instances a more aggressive approach may also be necessary.

Terrorism cannot be defeated by the use of force alone. Force is not the answer to this complicated problem. In fact the use of force does not solve any problems. The use of force often leaves destruction and suffering in its wake, hurting more people and deepening wounds. Human conflicts should be resolved with compassion. The key should be the use of nonviolence.

Human conflicts do not arise out of the blue. They occur as a result of causes and conditions, many of which are within the protagonists’ control. This is where leadership is important. It is our leaders’ responsibility to decide when to act and when to be restrained. In the case of violent conflict it is important to restrain the situation before it gets out of hand. Once the causes and conditions for violent clashes have ripened, it is very difficult to calm them down again. Violence undoubtedly breeds more violence. If we instinctively retaliate against violence done to us, what can we expect other than that from our opponent who will also feel justified to retaliate in turn? Preventive measures and restraint have to be adopted at an early stage. Clearly leaders need to be alert, farsighted and decisive.

Everyone wishes to live in peace, but we are often confused about how it can be achieved. Mahatma Gandhi pointed out that because violence inevitably leads to more violence; therefore if we are seriously interested in peace, it must be achieved through peaceful and nonviolent means.

We must continue to develop a wider perspective, to think rationally and work to avert future disasters in a nonviolent way. These issues concern the whole of humanity, not just one country. We should explore the use of nonviolence as a longterm measure to control terrorism of any kind. But we need a well thought out, coordinated longterm strategy. The proper way of resolving differences is through dialogue, compromise and negotiations, through human understanding and humility. We need to appreciate that genuine peace comes about through mutual understanding, respect and trust. As I have already said, human problems should be solved in a humanitarian way, and nonviolence is the humane approach.

Rt. Hon. David Trimble
NOBEL PEACE LAUREATE 1998

Born in Bangor on October 15, 1944, Trimble co-won the Nobel Peace prize with John Hume for their work in securing the Belfast Agreement. He was First Minister of the North Ireland Assembly 1998–2000. He is also a Member of Parliament of the Ulster Unionist Party (since 1995).

The United Nations Left Us No Option But to Act

We had no doubt about the nature of the regime in Iraq. We had no doubt about the threat, about the wars that have been started, or about the weapons of mass destruction that have been accumulated and used. There was also no doubt about what the United Nations required. There were United Nations resolutions that required Saddam Hussein to disarm. There was certainly a failure to comply. There was a material breach before Resolution 1441, and there was a material breach when Allied troops went into Iraq.

It was only the credible threat of force that has achieved the little progress that had been there up until that point, and that made Saddam Hussein permit the admission of inspectors. That came after the failure of earlier UN resolutions. All the resolutions in the 1990s failed. The UN and the world community allowed themselves to be bluffed and manoeuvred out of Iraq. Against that background, 1441 had to be clear, and backed up by a credible threat of force. That credible threat had to be maintained.

The paradox is that, in order to obtain compliance with UN resolutions, there had to be the threat of force. Because Saddam Hussein failed to comply, it was inevitable that that force would have to be used. Those who supported the UN and its resolutions, including 1441, must be aware that, as a consequence, they had to support the credible use of force, right down to the point of its use. Those who failed to do so weakened the UN gravely.

The UN had been weakened badly enough by the failures of the 1990s. It again set its hand to trying to carry through its will in this matter, and it had to succeed. If it did not, enormous damage would have been done to the possibility that the UN can be credible in the future, and that will have implications for world peace. The paradox is that those who want peace and a UN that succeeds in the world had, therefore, to support the use of force when that became necessary.

I appreciate that some people find that difficult to live with. Some of those who were reluctant to go down the route that I have described were well meaning, and others were engaged in wishful thinking.

Other people were influenced by less noble motives. I have been distressed by the degree of anti-Americanism that has been expressed in recent months, and the personal hostility to the President. I consider that wholly misplaced. I have been appalled at some of the comments about President Bush, and at the false caricature of him that has been presented. I base that opinion not only on the fleeting personal acquaintance that I have had with him, but on what he has said and done over the past couple of years, which I looked at closely.

The record has been clear, especially in the period since September 11. The U.S. moved slowly, deliberately and proportionately. That was the evidence.

People were right to be concerned about what would happen in Iraq and the region if force had to be used. However, we must realise that the region is highly unstable. That was another of the lessons of September 11: it brought home to us just how unstable the region is. We need to think about the causes of that instability, and about how we can resolve or do something to improve the situation there.

This is a complex issue. If there were no oil in the region, there would be a series of failed states there. The region has failed to deal with the challenge of modernisation.

I am talking about the Middle East region as a whole and the Arab states there, not about Islam. A distinction must be drawn between Islam and what is happening in the Middle East in respect of a particular and virulent strand of that religion. That strand is a distortion of Islam.

We need to ask why modernisation has failed. Saddam grew out of the Ba'ath socialist party, although he was, in fact, a crude anti-Semitic nationalist. Why have such people obtained and retained power? How do we change that?

How can we change the culture in the Middle East and the orientation of those states because, until we do that, we will not achieve stability? Just talking about the problem in Israel and the Palestinian areas is not terribly helpful. That problem cannot be dealt with in isolation. It is part of the instability generally, and dealing with that instability generally will make it easier to deal with Israel and Palestine; but we cannot deal with that in isolation.

Some spoke of containment and deterrence as a way of dealing with the problem in Iraq. Those concepts worked well during the Cold War, but the world has changed since the Cold War ended. We had to recognise that containment and deterrence would not work in the situation that confronted us.

In the modern world, we face danger from what are called rogue states, terrorist groups with a global reach and weapons of mass destruction. As a consequence of the Cold War, there is a lot of expertise and materiel floating around the world that is not as well guarded as it should be.

Perhaps we did not fully appreciate the problem before September 11, but the events of that day should have concentrated minds on the matter. The significance of September 11 is that it made people realise that a different approach was needed if we were ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Preface
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Foreword
• Introduction
• Contents
• Part I: Contributions from Nobel Peace Prize Winners
• Part II: Contributions from Eminent Scholars
• Part III: Sermons in Closing…
• Back Cover