Iraq conference examines U.S., international policies

Scott Silliman said he could not have guessed last December how appropriate this week's conference on Iraq would be when he started planning the annual conference put on by the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.

"We knew that Iraq was going to be an important issue, but we did not know how relevant," said Silliman, executive director of the center and professor of the practice of law. "The timing was exquisite, and the topic was dead on."

"Confronting Iraq: Legal and Policy Consideration," which began Thursday and continues through noon today, has drawn more than 200 academics, students, policy makers and community members.

Eight panels and speeches are featuring 28 experts on Iraq, the United Nations, foreign policy, international law and nation building, among other topics.

"We tried to select speakers that would reflect different views," Silliman said. "We didn't want it to be a position forum."

Below is a sampling of the discussions that occurred yesterday. Today's panels, which begin at 8:30 in the morning at the Washington Duke Inn, deal with the aftermath of the war and rebuilding the region. All are welcome to attend.

--By Kelly Rohrs

Panel takes on weapons inspections

Nevertheless, Trevan still believed that pursuing a U.N. route of achieving weapons compliance was more acceptable.

Panelist Terence Taylor, executive director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Washington, called disarmament of a country without its cooperation a "mission impossible."

"Cooperation is absolutely essential," Taylor stated at the outset of the panel.

Agreeing with Taylor, panelist Rexon Ryu of the State Department's Bureau of Nonproliferation added that verification of disarmament was equally difficult.

Ryu also addressed disarmament in the context of Iraq. "There is a litany of information now that Iraq had thwarted inspections and provided only piecemeal assistance [to the U.N.]," he said.

The third panelist of the morning, Indiana University Professor of Law David Fidler, approached the issue from a legalistic perspective. Enforcing international legal obligations such as weapons treaties and inspection programs required global support, he said.

Audience members citing the urgency of the Iraq issue easily engaged in dialogue with the panelists. Edward Link, an audience member, asked the panel what U.N. inspector Hans Blix might say to their remarks regarding the "impossible" nature of truly confirming disarmament; however, panelists stood by their original remarks.

Despite its 8:45 a.m. start, some students took the opportunity to attend the convention. Sophomore Katherine Young said she felt compelled to participate. "I just think that if we're at war, it's important to be here," she said.

--By Emily Almas

Ambassador calls for U.N. inclusion

Hussein Hassouna was in the minority at the two-day conference that began Thursday.

Speaking as the lone voice from the Middle East, the League of Arab States' ambassador to the United States spoke out strongly at an afternoon luncheon in support of the United Nations and encouraged the United States to address the larger conflict between Arabs and Israelis.

Hassouna--who has also served as an ambassador to the United Nations--encouraged the United States to include the United Nations in any efforts to rebuild Iraq, now that military action has succeeded in toppling Saddam Hussein's regime.

"The United Nations is and will remain the main forum for settling the global issues the world is facing, and no country alone, however powerful, can affect those issues because they affect us all," he said.

He argued that in the current world order, in which the United States has "unchallenged supremacy," the only way for America to maintain a respectable reputation is to act in accordance with the will of a multinational governing body.

The lone method for rebuilding Iraq in a way that other nations--both in the Arab and non-Arab worlds--will accept is to let the Iraqi people direct the creation of their new government, he added.

"Yes, we need more democratization, but democratization has to come from within our society according to our history, our tradition and our values," Hassouna said.

As attendees at the conference finished chocolate cake dessert topped with strawberries, Hassouna addressed comments other conference speakers had made earlier discounting the prominence of the conflict between Israel and the Arab world.

"Arab-Israeli problems remains in the hearts and minds of people in the Middle East--the main problem," he said. "The problem of Iraq is a problem that is linked to the Arab-Israeli problem. We can have progress on the Palestinian problem and on the larger Israeli problem."

--By Kelly Rohrs

White House official discusses war powers

When Dean McGrath graduated from Duke in 1975, he had no idea he would become one of the highest ranking officials in the White House. Headlining a conference at his alma mater about issues of national and international importance seemed beyond belief.

Now the Deputy Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, McGrath was Thursday's final speaker at the two-day conference. He delivered remarks to approximately 75 attendees about war powers as defined in the United States Constitution.

"The message I would want you to take home is that the Preamble to the Constitution includes directions to policy makers and national officials about how we order conduct that has applications to today's war on terrorism," McGrath said at the conclusion of the evening. "A document that is 200-plus years old has continuing viability as a public policy document and legal document."

McGrath, who is also an adjunct professor at the Georgetown School of Law, devoted his remarks to the Preamble of the Constitution, analyzing how each clause provides justification for the current war on terrorism.

"The essence of the war on terrorism is embodied in the Preamble's phrase 'provide for the common defense.'... The prospect of having to wait out a first strike from an adversary with weapons of mass destruction is not covered by the Constitution," he said. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Quoting the vice president, McGrath told the audience that Cold War era tactics of containment and deterrence were no longer applicable. "'Containment does not work on a rogue state that possesses weapons of mass destruction and chooses to secretly deliver them to terrorists,'" he said.

McGrath explained to the audience that the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only morally justifiable, but it is also in line with the intentions of the framers of the Constitution.

"The Constitution's legal norms have provided a remarkable legal policy regarding the use of force," he said. "The welfare of the American people is of paramount importance."

During the question and answer session following his speech, McGrath addressed questions ranging from the United States' treatment of detainees and current relevance of Congressional declarations of war to the United States' adherence to United Nations resolutions and the Geneva Convention.

In response to a question regarding an 'empire of liberty' the U.S. is allegedly trying to create, McGrath defended using force in liberating citizens of dictatorial regimes.

"[The Preamble] is a directional to the national government with respect to the rights and liberties of the American people," he said. "The motivation for asserting rights and liberties to people outside the U.S. is to me a perfectly legitimate interest, though it's not a derivative of the Constitution."

--By Karen Hauptman