( Who can find a virtuous woman ... )

1. work-life balance;
2. sexual harrassment in the workplace; and
3. family planning (including abortion and use of contraceptives).

In the course of approximately two months, I have attended two very interesting seminars on the Iraq war. The first is jointly organized by the University of New South Wales Alumni ("UNSWA") and the Association of Women for Action & Research ("AWARE"). The second is organized by the Attorney-General's Chambers ("AGC") as part of its International Law Speakers Series 2005. The two seminars approached the Iraq war in very different ways. Nonetheless, both brought home the fact that debate about the Iraq war is alive and well in Singapore, despite the silence in the media about Singapore's own position in the war. I am fairly sure that most of us have noticed that the Singapore press has focused its energies on reporting the positions taken by other states and the ongoing debate in other states about the war, but has remained largely silent (since I don't read the papers thoroughly everyday, I can't say absolutely silent, though that is my impression) on such events in Singapore.

Women of Courage Forum by AWARE & UNSWA on 18 May 2005

The Women of Courage Forum attracted my attention as the speakers are two women - one as a journalist for a Indonesian television station, and the second is an Iraqi lady who is the coordinator for UNIFEM's Iraqi programme. The journalist, Ms. Meutyah Hafid was captured by Iraqi forces while sending home news on the situation in Iraq, and was held captive by the Iraqi forces for seven days and six nights. Ms. Basma Alkhateeb lived through the two Gulf Wars, and joined UNIFEM in July 2003 after the fall of the former Iraqi regime.

What was interesting in this forum was that it provided an hitherto hidden glimpse into Iraq that I have not seen in the media, whether in Singapore or otherwise. What was it like to be captured by Iraqi forces and have your very life dependent on the action of your head of state? Ms. Hafid lived through that - she told of how she lived in a cave with her captors, and how electronic devices have to be switched off to avoid the US helicopters above from detecting their hideout (and bombing the cave, killing everyone, hostage and captors alike). She spoke of how over time she grew closer to her captors, as they spoke and interacted in the cave, of her growing apprehension as the Indonesian President stayed silent. Much as I admired her for her courage, however, it dims in comparison with the respect I have for Ms. Basma. After all, Ms. Hafid was a victim of circumstances - she was captured while on overseas assignment in Iraq and her survival was very largely dependent, not on her personal courage, but on geopolitical developments. She is courageous, yes, but it is reactive courage, not pro-active courage.

Ms. Basma, on the other hand, is an Iraqi who actively works to better the lives of Iraqi women in post-Saddam Iraq, putting herself in very real danger from the militants. And she can't go home, because she is at home.  One of the most touching moments of her talk was when she recited the names of female civic workers who had been killed in the line of duty - and she knows them, personally, as friends and as colleagues. What also touched me during her talk was her stories of how Iraqis guarded the schools to ensure that their children can go to school, how they turned out to vote despite the threats, how they tried to ensure that life goes on, despite the sanctions earlier, and the current chaos. She gave a very personal, and very man-in-the-street glimpse into Iraqi society. It is like lifting a curtain for a second, to allow us a glimpse into a hidden world.

International Law: Dead or Alive by AGC on 23 June 2005

This is a more "main-stream" seminar - in that there is nothing very much here that is not discussed in the international media - the legality of the Iraq war, the US's growing disregard for international conventions, laws, treaties and organizations etc. What sets it apart from the usual New York Times, CNN, Fox, BBC columns is that two of speakers on the panel are Singaporeans - Professor Tommy Koh and Mr. Kishore Mahbubani, two Singaporeans with first-hand experience with international political events. The third speaker, who is actually the main speaker, is Professor Philippe Sands QC, an expert in international law. The Iraq war, in this seminar, serves more as an illustration of the points the speakers are trying to make. However, the Iraq war did take up quite a bit of time as it is quite a good example of US actions in recent years.

Professor Sands was basically making two points - first that US had, in recent years, seriously weakened the international regime of the rule of law that was first set up during the Second World War by the US and the UK (Atlantic Charter) by its behaviour, and second, that the UK and US are guilty of carrying out an illegal war in Iraq. The speakers led us through the various UN resolutions on the Iraq situation, the two opinions  prepared by the UK Attorney-General on the legality of war which reached different conclusions, the various legal opinions prepared by the US officials on interrogation practices etc. I am trying to get hold of these documents to read for myself - so far, I have only managed to get hold of the 13 page opinion prepared by the UK AG.

The issues are not merely academic - I for one do not believe that just because the Iraq war has taken place, the legality of the war (or otherwise) is a moot point, which seems to be the position taken by some people. I think there are two ways to approach it. A personal approach is this - yes, in wars people die. It is an unavoidable consequence of going to war. However, there is a difference in losing a loved one who fought on the "right" side, on the moral high ground. It is another to lose someone who died because their leaders wanted war, and did not care whether they had to lie through their teeth to get the war they want. A fine distinction? Perhaps, but nonetheless important and I think, crucial. And the legality of the war, is a very important factor in determining whether we are fighting a "just" or "right" war - because in this type of cases in particular, morality and the law are usually very much aligned (The whole issue of the alignment of law and justice is another whole topic altogether). And in Singapore, this is a very sensitive point - we are not like the US, where the armed forces are made up of career soldiers who actively chose this way of life and can so be expected to live with the consequences. We live in a country where the military draft is very much in force. Our fathers, brothers, cousins, husbands, loved ones can be called upon to fight (and to die) in any war our country is engaged in - can we, just as a matter of self-interest, not sit up and take notice of a war fought on dubious justification, and (in hindsight) entered into with a load of misrepresentation if not outright lies, and not worry, not react, not protest? What if one day, your brother, your husband is sent to a far away land to fight for a war that nobody believes is just or right or legal? Won't it be too late? Or should we simply trust in the wisdom and incorruptibility of our government not to engage in such a foolish endeavour?

The second approach is more high-level. The whole issue is one of establishing undesirable precedents - if a super-power such as the US believes that it can disregard international laws with impunity, what reassurance does that provide the rest of the world other than the assurance that the US will always act benignly and in the best interest of all? And honestly, after recent events, how much assurance is that? As Mr. Mahbubani said, in the past, upholding the rule of law goes hand-in-hand with the US's national interest. With the end of the Cold War, this is increasingly no longer the case. As such, there is an adjustment in the US position with respect to international law, which it sees increasingly as a restraint on its freedom. Now, extrapolating from that - we can assume that the US will only act in the best interest of all when it is in its own particular interest to do so. I am not saying that is morally wrong or whatever of the US to do so - national interest is paramount after all - but what I am saying is that this does not give other nations, none of which are currently in a position to stand up to the US, much reassurance.

A second aspect to this is whether other countries will be bound by the international laws that the US has disregarded? What if one day, Russia, China, Japan, Turkey or Singapore decides that it should too disregard the rule of law and declare war as and when the country in question deems fit? Are we back to the pre-Atlantic Charter era where force is might? And what happens, when, not if, another super-power eventually raises and replace or challenge the US for supremacy? Without the rule of law, what kind of world are we looking at?

I never took international law when I was a student, though I was quite interested - I reasoned that since I am interested, I'll probably will read up on my own. Nonetheless, as an amateur, I think that the international order of the day is dependent to a very large degree on the super-power of the day. The rule of law was put into place by the Americans after the Second World War, replacing the "might is right" and the "balance of power" concepts that governed international relations during European supremacy (let's not go into the discussion of balance of power in the context of the Cold War for the time-being). Now the big boy has decided to change the rules, what can the small boys do?