The Fletcher School

A Graduate School of International Affairs

Fletcher Features

Thinking about Iraq: PhD Students Discuss the Issues
There has been much discussion about Iraq of late, some more thoughtful, some less so. Falling into the former category was the November 20th PhD Forum, “Thinking about Iraq.” While no single speech or forum can capture all of the intricacies of the issue, the Forum provided an opportunity to bring greater depth to our consideration of the possibility of military intervention in Iraq.

After a brief welcome from Professor Matthew Kahn, the Chair of the Fletcher PhD Committee, Susan Fink opened the forum with a presentation entitled “Military Intervention: Western Thinking about Authorization and Justification.” Fink, who will be joining the faculty of the Naval War College in March, has focused on international security, conflict resolution and humanitarian studies at Fletcher.

Related Links
PhD Student Web Site
Speaking to a full room, she argued that in the present international context, military intervention is greatly facilitated by a confluence among the various Western traditions on intervention – realists, rationalists, and revolutionists. Fink maintained that this confluence was present in the case of Kosovo: “Realists could justify force based on interest arguments, Revolutionists by an emphasis on moral solidarity and human rights arguments and Rationalists could make a natural law argument to circumvent custom in order to save lives. That confluence is not present in the Iraq debate.” It is this lack of convergence – both among and within states – that renders military intervention in Iraq so controversial.

Yet there have been many arguments made by proponents of intervention, chief among them being the potential for Iraq (and, in particular, Saddam Hussein) to gain the capability to manufacture and employ weapons of mass destruction. It is precisely this issue that was addressed by Margaret Sloane, Mary Beth Reissen, and Chen Zak, who examined previous experiences with weapons inspections in Iraq, their successes and shortcomings, and prospects for future.

Margaret Sloane is a fellow at the International Security Program at the Belfer Center at Harvard’s Kennedy School, as well as a PhD candidate at Fletcher. Her research focuses on the verification of biological weapons in Iraq, and it was on this topic that she spoke. In “Iraq’s Admission of Its Biological Weapons Program and Its Implications for Upcoming Inspections,” Sloane emphasized not only the value that Iraq has placed on its weapons program, but also necessity of intelligence and time for inspections to be effective.

In “Did UNSCOM Cave?” Mary Beth Reissen maintained that in past weapons inspections, Iraq used a variety of means to achieve its strategic goals of avoiding further coercive measures, obtaining rewards for compliance, and retaining its weapons programs. Highlighting the role of relations among other states – particularly the five permanent members of the Security Council (P-5) – she argued that inspections were undermined by divisions among the P-5 that were exploited by Iraq. At Fletcher, Reissen has focused on international security, Southwest Asia and Islamic civilization, and international human rights.

Rounding out the discussion on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chen Zak spoke on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s nuclear weapons inspections in Iraq. She concluded that past inspections have not always been effective and that Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was both well funded and well staffed. Zak, whose dissertation examines the new IAEA safeguards system, served in the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission from 1995 to 2000 and is the author of the monograph Iran’s Nuclear Policy and the IAEA: An Evaluation of Program 93+2.

Maria Stephan, whose research at Fletcher addresses the use of nonviolent strategies in asymmetric struggles, examined the question of intervention from a perspective uncommon in either the media or in academia. She considered the potential for non-violent movements to bring about regime change in Iraq. Citing the Philippines and other examples of non-violent movements, she argued that “people power” is not the chimera of pacifists, but rather an entire array of tools that have been used successfully for political and social change in all regions of the world, including the Middle East. Thus the question one must take away from the discussion is not just whether or not intervention is justified, but also whether either military intervention or diplomacy are the only – or most effective – means to bring about change. Stephan has worked in the policy departments at the US Department of Defense and NATO.

Time was set aside after the presentations for questions from both the faculty panel participating in the forum and from the audience. In addition to Matthew Kahn, the faculty panel included Andrew Hess, the Director of the Southwest Asia and Islamic Studies Program; Ian Johnstone, Professor of International Law; and Richard Schultz, the Director of the International Security Studies Program.

Like the presentations themselves, the questions attested to the complexity of the issues surrounding a potential military intervention in Iraq: they ranged from the political and philosophical basis for intervention, to the significance of cultural divisions between Eastern and Western thought on such issues as intervention, non-violence, and democracy, to questions on the best means for bringing about change and on the longer term impacts of military action.

“Thinking about Iraq,” Fletcher’s third PhD Student Forum, was held with the support of the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies, the Department of Southwest Asia and Islamic Studies, and the Asia Studies Club. A semi-annual event, the PhD forum seeks to highlight the research of Fletcher’s doctoral candidates and to encourage academic dialogue on important global issues. Previous forums have addressed issues relating to China and to globalization.