Front Matter: New Direction This issue marks a big turning point for the PSSU and the journal, building on the success and hard work of the previous two. As the Union continues to attract more student involvement and expand its o� cial activity within the scope of its mandate, we hope to develop the journal to refl ect that. Beginning this issue with a foreword might be unconventional, and certainly unprecedented, but there are many aspects to our new direction that need to be staked out. This is the fi rst multi-issue volume of the journal, and we plan to carry this forward into the future publishing one issue per semester. As the fi rst of the new program, is meant to be a big clean-up to the backlog of entries that was beginning to develop as the journal became better known. This is for a few reasons: SFU’s three semester year makes a two issue program imbalanced, to create more space to publish the good work our peers do, and smaller but more frequent work loads make assembling an issue easier for editors. Perhaps most importantly, the frequency of publication will eventually create a space for serious, academic student interaction and learning outside the constraints of the classroom and the tiny ephemeral spaces that form and disappear around tables in the pub. Regularly presenting new work on a frequent basis will hopefully motivate better work in the classroom, with a more thoughtful engagement of the world outside of it. With the tall stack of entries to draw upon, we have been very lucky to have an abundance of good work and feel we have assembled a great issue that contains works with subtle parallels, bridges across cultural boundaries, with a diversity of perspective and method. For the journal to become a space for interaction will mean further changes and adaptation in the future, but may include a section for book reviews, or round-table discussion, or better feature ideas than we have had yet. Also, a space like this for the editors to comment on the issue will shape the journal into more than just a repository of good essays. Holding a symposium in parallel with each new issue also has promise to become a place for potent thought and conversation about the works published, and beyond. This project, because of its place within the academic world—a toe in the door, though still outside the room—allows us a freedom and fl exibility to experiment and make it whatever we need it to be. Tyler Carlson’s essay on the justness of the Iraq War wades into a di� cult topic, curiously neglected in the previous two volumes, turning a harshly critical eye on a major historical event in American foreign policy. Inder Gill’s statistical examination of ethnic ‘fractionalization’ as a motivator of political unrest is a potent reminder of the complexity of politics, and proof that an essay does not need to be extremely long or wordy to be of value. Our honours feature contributor, Laura Gray, provides a detailed examination of the valuable work women can do in international peace keeping, through a Liberian case study. Imraan Karim examines Russia’s actions in Georgia from a neutral, realist perspective, contrasting with Carlson’s treatment of arguably similar state actions. Ricardo Khayatte looks into the development of Canada as a trading entity in the world, looking into the near future we live in today. Matt Law’s investigation Zapatismo is the fi rst of two essays concerning anarchism, looking at this salient Mexican ideology in particular. We are very lucky to have Annie Montcalm-Cardinal’s contribution as an exchange student from the Université de Montréal, providing for us a look at the Parti Quebecois and their ideology alien to most in Western Canada, through the eyes of someone familiar with it. Jimmy Peterson provides an overview of, as the title says, the ways that Aboriginal claim rights have been and are developing through activity in the court system. Gloria Shu’s essay is a look into the development of China’s governmental censorship of the internet, and the impacts that has on political dissent, activity, and communication. Finally, Erik Taje provides the second essay on anarchism, this time from an analysis of canonical content with a broad perspective, to contend on behalf of its ideological foundations and consistency. A project like this is not accomplished by one or two people alone, but hard work from a number of people. Acknowledgments for this journal go to Bryn Hewko, whose cover design and layout continue to provide a stylish and readable format for us into the future. Special thanks to Anchi Lin for helping with production design. Thanks also for the support and encouragement from PSSU Presidents past and present, the Department ofPoliticalScience, and the faculty— especially for help with generating submissions. This journal is made possible by grants from the SFSS, and of course the e� orts of all the contributors in creating their work, enduring submission, editing, and the rewriting schedule. — W. Andrew Keech & Madina Tabesh, eds. For information regarding submission deadlines for next semester, our thoughts on citation style, and other things, go to .
The Case of the Iraq War Exploiting Justice and Consequentialism By Tyler Carlson On 17 March 2003, U.S. President George Bush delivered an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It demanded that Hussein must disarm all ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMDs) and leave Iraq within 48 hours or face a full-scale invasion by a coalition led by the US military. Eight and a half years later, one can refl ect on the horrifi c outcome of this ultimatum. To this day, President Bush maintains the belief that ‘history will be his judge’, or that the ends will someday justify the means. Yet history has thus far judged him unfavourably: the belief that the War in Iraq was unjust and immoral is widespread and the criticism of this confl ict has expanded for long enough that it has become a tiresome subject for many. Regardless of this, revisiting this case is important to the present understanding of unjust war and warfare, and the likely consequences of preventative wars. Therefore, this paper aims to assess the justness of the Iraq War in principle and practice, and determine whether ‘consequentialist’ arguments are adequate as a justifi cation for war. Moreover, using just war theory to analyze whether the Iraq War is morally unjustifi ed, I will explore and discuss what lessons can be learned from its application to this case. Employing just war theory requires two central considerations: these are “justice of war” (JOW) and “justice in war” (JIW) (Coady, 2002). When analysing the Iraq War under the criteria of JOW, there are some apparent shortcomings. Although the Bush administration proclaimed the invasion of Iraq to be a just cause, the assertion that Iraq posed an imminent threat gradually became doubtful until it was refuted completely (“War wasn’t justifi ed”, 2004). The initial accusations made 5 by the Bush administration were that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and he could potentially supply these weapons to terrorist organizations. Therefore, these weapons had to be forcibly removed because of the threat they posed in Hussein’s control. Whether or not this supposed just cause was nothing more than a fi ctional pretext for invasion has been highly debated in the past (Weigel, 2007; Fisher and Biggar, 2011). If Iraq was invaded only to achieve regime change and a favourable shift in political relations, in other words overthrowing the Hussein regime, then this war becomes a lot less justifi able. Michael Walzer believes that regime change is only a legitimate goal when a regime acts with unyielding aggression against other states, such as the military conquests of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany bringing on the Second World War. It violates state sovereignty to remove a regime merely for the benefi t of other states, he argues. Walzer’s legalist paradigm can also be applied to this case: this concept emphasises the sovereignty of a state and the principle of non-intervention within other state a� airs except when aggression is used (Walzer, 2006). Under Walzer’s defi nition of aggression, domestic a� airs are excluded, and only a clear attack or intent to attack another sovereign state may constitute aggression. Therefore, seeing as Iraq showed no aggression towards the United States during the prelude to the confl ict, it indicates that there was no justifi cation for war. Meanwhile, others disagree with such an idea, and claim that justifi cations for regime change in the context of Iraq were legitimate. Michael Ignatie� considered regime change to be a central argument in support of the invasion (Ignatie� , 2003). After all, there was a presumed threat at the time, and many Americans backed the invasion and trusted the assertions against Hussein. Regardless of the fact that this was later revealed untrue, Iraq allegedly posed a potential threat to US national security in 2003. However, even under the assumption that governments and their intelligence agencies sincerely believed the information they were disseminating, this would still only classify Iraq as a future potential threat, not an imminent threat. Therefore, this was a preventative war rather than a pre-emptive strike, and making a distinction between the two is essential in just war theory (Walzer, 2006). The Justness of the Invasion According to Walzer, a preventative war is based