What We Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation Building
What are, and what should be, the legal and ethical norms governing the U.S. role in Iraq? Feldman's answer, set within a crisp and provocative examination of international law and historical experiences with colonialism, trusteeships, and mandates, is that having broken the Iraqi government, Washington has an obligation to bring about a new and better one. The United States, with the United Nations and allies if and as feasible, should assume the role of the "nonpaternalistic nation builder," whose primary responsibility is to "impose security... to prevent civil war or anarchy" and then to organize elections to set the stage for eventual withdrawal. Feldman weaves into his argument perceptive accounts of the U.S. experience in Iraq (where he served as a legal adviser) in 2003 and 2004 and wrestles with the kinds of observations the realist school of international relations would raise. He notes in passing that the United States owes Iraq a better job of nation building than the British provided after World War I. At this point, however, many Americans and Iraqis might settle for one that is merely no worse.
Related
The Foreigner's Gift is vintage Fouad Ajami: bold, crisp, wide-ranging, and discursive, it will surely both inform and provoke. But can the U.S. invasion of Iraq really be defended as a noble mission regardless of its cause -- or its outcome?
The difference between the factions in Bosnia is not morality, as the Bosnian Muslims and Western press insist, but power and opportunity. All have the same goal: to avoid living as a minority. All have committed crimes against other ethnic groups. Despite its claims of neutrality and preaching against military solutions, the United States has favored the Bosnian Muslims, keeping silent as they launched offensives from U.N.-guarded safe areas. Since air strikes cannot resolve the conflict, the United States must discourage violence by all sides and let Russia--the one country Serbs trust--take the lead in negotiations.
Jimmy Carter's high-profile parachutes for peace earn scorn from some and admiration from others. From Haiti to North Korea, the ubiquitous former president helps resolve disputes with his unshakable confidence in the power of moral suasion. But Carter's penchant for bucking U.S. foreign policy has strained his relations with the Washington establishment, and the Clinton administration has not always treated him with the respect he deserves. Lost in the controversy are the humanitarian achievements on which his reputation will ultimately rest.
