Sometimes, If There Is No Smoke, There Is No Fire

Terry Pratchett once had a character ask a bureaucrat "Before you will give them a new pencil, they have to show you the absence of a pencil?" The bureaucrat did not see the joke. Now, I'm not going to re-read all thirty-odd books to track down the quote, but for those who are interested I seem to recall it was Death talking to Ridcully. The reason I mention this quote is that it has been on my mind a lot recently. A simple joke from a funny writer becomes altogether more scary when spoken by our great leaders.

President Bush doesn't get the joke. Yesterday, he again spoke of "time running out" for Iraq to disarm. Similar comments have been made recently by Tony Blair. The British Prime Minister doesn't get the joke either. Both Bush and Blair base their desire for war on the assumption that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and that the point of the current U.N. inspections is to force Iraq to disarm. In fact, the inspections are to discover if Iraq has such weapons. The decision of what to do if weapons are discovered remains to be made.

What is the relevance of the quote? Simply, both Bush and Blair have stated that Hussein must prove he has no weapons of mass destruction, that he has disarmed. In other words, he must show them the absence of weapons. If he can't, war starts.

The Bush/Blair logic is entirely backwards. If we are to go to war, there must be a clear reason. There must be a clear or proximate danger to Britain. There must be a clear act of massive aggression against Iraq's neighbours or people. There must, in short, be justification for the loss of life that will occur on both sides. If we are to go to war, we must provide that proof. It is not up to Iraq to prove it has no weapons of mass destruction, but for us to prove that they do. Further it is for us to prove that the only means of disarming Iraq is by force. The concept of presumption of innocence is inherent in both British and American legal systems, as is the concept of minimal defensive force. Both these concepts should be central to our international relations as well.

Most opposition to the Blair/Bush axis has centred on obtaining a second U.N. resolution before going to war. For myself, this is less due to a belief in the need for justified war to be U.N. sanctified than because only the U.N. is likely to have the clout to make public the evidence needed to justify aggression. An unprovoked Iraqi invasion of a neighbour, use of weapons of mass destruction, or direct attack on Britain or America would justify war, if necessary without U.N. approval. It is not the U.N. I see as central to a just war, but the evidence. Given the refusal of our leaders to convince us of the need to attack, they must instead convince their peers.

Of course, both Bush and Blair believe that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The basis of this belief is unclear. I cannot believe they have any evidence, or we would have seen it by now. Their strategy, instead, seems to rely on waiting for the U.N. inspectors to discover some evidence that can be used as an excuse for war. Dr Blix and his team are expected to find the smoking gun. Given the specific expectations that both leaders have for the inspections, it seems strange that they are so unwilling to support the inspectors. Especially puzzling is the refusal to provide intelligence pertaining to the existence of the alleged weapons. Why would a government searching for a smoking gun refuse to indicate its possible location? The only conclusion I can draw is that no such intelligence exists.

Now, the absence of proof is not the proof of absence, but it is becoming clear to me that there is no real justification for our leaders' rhetoric against Iraq. The presence of U.N. inspectors is important, their work potentially vital to controlling an unstable regime with ambitious, lethal plans, but the few scraps of evidence that have appeared indicate that Iraq is already weaponless. That Hussein wishes to obtain chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is beyond doubt, but that he has such weapons already seems unlikely. The weapons inspectors have yet to find anything incriminating, and the refusal of the various intelligence communities to tell them where to look indicates they have not found anything either.

Instead, we should turn our attention to the country with a very obvious smoking gun, North Korea. Does this mean I support the immediate invasion of North Korea? Of course not. As I said earlier, the concept of minimal force should apply to our international relations. It seems to me that diplomacy can still be an effective tool in disarming North Korea; something else that Bush does not get. His mistake with the Koreans, as with the Iraqis is to forget that diplomacy is a tool with two edges. While both Bush and Blair are very good at talking tough, they forget the necessary carrot. North Korea appears to have decided it is sufficiently isolated and threatened that the only way of avoiding war with America is to be too tough to attack. While Bush is distracted playing games with Iraq, North Korea is taking the opportunity to publicly arm itself. The only solution is to stop talking tough and offer big rewards for disarming - money and expertise to help with the development of health care and infrastructure, access to new technology, trade agreements, and acceptance into the international community.

Making threats and impossible demands has already proved untenable in North Korea, provoking the current crisis. There is no reason to believe it will be any less disastrous in Iraq. It is time for our leaders to stop believing their own propaganda, and start working towards the more boring but ultimately more successful diplomatic solutions.

Graham Robinson. 15th January 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.