160 Packard Avenue - Tufts University - Medford, Massachusetts 02155-7082 USA - 617.627.3700
Comments to: FletcherWeb@tufts.edu
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||
 |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
|
Forum on Iraq |
||||||||
The second Gulf War began during Fletcher’s spring break; students
returned anxious to talk about what they were seeing, hearing and
reading in the news. Opinions of members of the Fletcher Community
are as diverse as the number of students, faculty and staff at the
School. What we share in common is a desire to think critically
about the issues involved, to interact civilly with our colleagues
and to examine from different disciplines the effects of the war
and its future implications for international affairs.
Dean Bosworth set the tone for the evening by reminding everyone that, “We should all remember we are here to further our education on these subjects. It is difficult to learn something when you are not listening.” The evening was marked by both a diversity of opinions and a civil tenor. Leila Fawaz, Issam M. Fares Professor of Lebanese and Eastern Mediterranean Studies and Director of the Fares Center spoke on “Some Foreign Perspectives.” Professor Fawaz began by noting that Tufts University is a “[haven] of tolerance” where different views can be expressed. She said, “It used to be that professors and students could speak irresponsibly while policymakers had to weigh their words carefully, but today the opposite is happening.” Professor Fawaz focused on perspectives from the Middle East “in the hope it will shed some light on the scenarios of the future, in a post-Saddam era.” She said, “US credibility in the region is at an all time low” and outlined the reasons for distrust. She listed colonial experience, the perception that President Bush has limited experience in foreign affairs, perceived double standards by the United States in its application of principles of human rights and democratization and the fear that a war will create new terrorists all as reasons for hostility towards US policy in the Middle East.  Fawaz concluded by saying, “In these dark days, history holds a
glimmer of hope. The last time the US was invaded before 9/11 was
in 1814 when the British attacked the most symbolic building of
the White House. If relations with Britain can be so good now,
perhaps the same could happen one day with Iraq. I just hope we
will not have to wait two centuries for that.”
View the video of Professor Fawaz's comments.Ian Johnstone, International Law Professor and former United Nations official addressed “The Relevance of the United Nations.” He started his address by saying, “In trying to muster support for military action against Iraq, President Bush repeatedly said it was a test of the relevance of the UN (and by that he meant the Security Council). This was either a very good or a very bad debating move--depending on the goal--because it had the effect of putting the SC in a no-win situation: it could either vote to authorize military action, proving to many it was a merely tool of the US; or it could refrain from authorizing a war that goes ahead anyway, proving that the SC cannot constrain the US. Either way the UN looks irrelevant.” Professor Johnstone then set out to prove both lines of attack as wrong. He pointed out that Iraq has been on the UN agenda for 13 years and cited public opinion polls showing that Europeans and Americans supported military action in Iraq provided it had Security Council support. Johnstone also spoke of “poor diplomacy” on the part of the Americans, saying “Instead of hammering away at the one matter on which all members of the Council could agree--namely the need to rid Iraq of its WMD--US officials spoke of regime change, links to Al-Qaeda that could not be proven, a doctrine of pre-emption that is hard to justify as a matter of international law, and from time to time they spoke about transforming the entire Middle East.” He concluded by saying that the United Nations would continue to be a place “where shared norms and collective interests are forged and articulated,” despite the current crisis. View the video of Professor Johnstone's comments. Academic Dean and Clayton Professor of International Economic Affairs Lisa Lynch spoke about “The Economic Impact of War.” She spoke first about the costs of the war from the point of view of the US government. After outlining the President’s request of $75 billion for this fiscal year, she said, “What has struck me as an economist is that there has been little discussion more generally of what the cost of this war would be under various scenarios.” Lynch outlined research done by Yale Economist William Nordhaus which predicted costs for a war would range from $121 billion for a favorable outcome to $1.6 trillion, using conservative assumptions, for an unfavorable result.  Lynch concluded by outlining five “bigger picture issues.” She
noted that boycotts between Europe and the United States had the
potential for negative effects on both economies. She also said,
“…the way the diplomatic measures played out increases
dramatically the possibility for more contentious trade fights
between the United States that the EU on genetically modified
organisms and other issues. Notions of Old Europe and other
rhetoric have a tremendous chilling effect on EU/US trade
relations.” She also highlighted the impact of 9/11 and the Iraq
War on immigration policy, the Doha Trade Round and the global
economy.
View the video of Professor Lynch's comments.Dr. Robert Russell, Director and Senior Scientist of the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center, spoke about “Public Health Issues in Iraq.” Russell began his talk by recalling a prior experience of his in Iraq in June 1991. “I was a member of the first UNICEF team to go into Iraq after the ceasefire to evaluate the status of children in Iraq. I was mainly in the city of Basra. I was ankle deep in sewage as the electricity had been targeted by the military and the potable water was just about nonexistent—the only potable water was from the Red Cross. The heat was unbearable—140 degrees during the day. The result of that study showed severe chronic malnutrition problems that started before the war. After recounting details of the survey, he asserted that the situation in Iraq is much worse now, at the start of the current war. “The war will disrupt the food distribution system that has been set up and people who depend on food aid in the south will be at risk.” He ended his talk by saying the “US should really quickly transfer power as an occupier to the UN due to credibility. In 1991, 110,000 children died as a result of the first Gulf War. I think it could be worse this time. I hope for the best, but I really do fear for the worse.” View the video of Professor Russell's comments. Finally, Chair of the Tufts University Political Science Department Professor Tony Smith addressed the audience on “Winning the Peace?” Smith opened by saying, “The idea of winning the peace, which has a question mark after it, is one that always confronts us after a major event in world affairs. Smith outlined reasons for the war, citing liberal motivations to confront human rights violations and realist concerns over weapons of mass destruction. He said, though, “Whenever a war of this magnitude is embarked upon, one has to confront the costs. I think the costs of this war are going to be so high that we are not going to see the type of peace and world order that can be won, even if Baghdad is taken and a large part of the population rises up to greet us as liberators.” Smith lamented the decline of multilateralism. “I’m glad to hear that there are some who are confident about the future of the UN; I wish I could be. It’s over—at least for the foreseeable future. Not that the UN is not willing and capable, but the US won’t try it.” Smith concluded by saying “I think we are looking toward a world order after this is over that will not be like the purpose we saw after ’19, ’45 and ’89. There are two choices: empire or isolationism.” View the video of Professor Smth's comments. |
 |
2002 The Fletcher School, Tufts
University |
|
|
| |