Like millions of others, I went to a peace rally yesterday. There were about 50 000 people in Brisbane*. I think it’s clear that the case for an immediate war aimed at getting rid of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction has not convinced the majority of Australians. That could change, given new evidence, but it’s clearly going to take a lot more than we have seen so far.

[* Crowd estimates are always tricky. The march took about an hour to pass any given point. Assuming 15 people per second passed each point (the marchers were about 15 abreast) that would make 3600*15= 54 000.]

Faced with similar protests in Britain, Blair switched to the moral case that has been his primary motivation all along – that Saddam is an evil dictator who has caused immense suffering in a sequence of wars and that his overthrow would be a blessing. This is a strong case, but it implies a totally different approach than that adopted over the last year.

A starting point would be an admission by the US government that it actively assisted or passively encouraged Saddam in the commission of his worst single crime – the war of aggression he launched against Iran, in which he made extensive use of chemical weapons. When Blair correctly says that Saddam’s wars have killed more people than were marching in London, he should be remined of this. I don’t say that the past crimes of the US government mean that it should not do anything about Saddam now, but an open declaration of the US role and an apology for US complicity are necessary if the moral case against Saddam is to have any standing.

The second requirement is for some sort of just basis for asserting that a particular leader is a criminal who deserves to be overthrown. We have such a basis in the International Criminal Court, in which Britain is a participant. Blair should demand that Saddam be tried before this court. Of course, a precondition is that the US should drop its own objections.

Third, there is the problem of equal justice.The moral case against Saddam is compromised by US complicity in the occupation of Palestine. If Bush were to demand acceptance by both sides in this dispute of a peace plan similar to that put up by Clinton and back his demand by a threat of sanctions and a willingness to enforce an agreed peace, the moral case against Saddam would be lot stronger.

Finally, there is the problem of multiple agendas. A moral case for war can be made only by forgoing all attempts at seeking strategic or economic side-benefits. Yet many (most) of the US commentators supporting war are pointing to such benefits as a primary or secondary motivation. A moral case would require a clear commitment not to use Iraqi oil to the benefit of the US, not to use Iraqi territory as a base for further military action, not to make side deals with countries like Turkey etc. So far none of this has been forthcoming.

To summarise, a moral case for war requires clean hands. Arguably Blair has clean hands on this issue. Bush certainly does not.

Update Ken Parish responds, missing the point pretty thoroughly in my view. I’m not claiming that the moral case for war is the only possible one. War can be justified as a defensive response to aggression. In fact, the interpetation of international law prevailing until very recently suggested that this is the only justifiable ground for war. In this case, the considerations I’ve set out above are largely irrelevant.

A second possible case for war has arisen recently, namely that clear and direct defiance of the UN could justify military actions to enforce its resolutions. Since this case lowers the bar for war substantially, it requires convincing evidence. At the moment, the evidence hasn’t been enough to convince anyone who wasn’t already committed to war. In particular, only a handful of members of the UNSC accept it. This could change, for example, if Saddam refuses to destroy missiles, but the need for a clear case can’t be brushed aside on the basis that the US wants to fight before the weather gets too hot.

The claim that there is a moral case for war is quite different to either of the two considered previously. This claim is that war can be justified simply on the basis that the government to be overthrown is a bad one. I’m sympathetic to this claim in principle, but it’s obviously an idea that needs to be handled with extreme care. It must require more than a decision by one government that some other government ought to be overthrown. That’s why I suggested a range of considerations that would apply in this case, broadly summed up as the need for ‘clean hands’.

Ken argues that all of these conditions are totally unrealistic. I’d argue on the contrary that few of them would be particularly problematic for Blair. He’s joined the ICC, supports pressure on Israel for a peace with the Palestinians, does not appear to be seeking strategic or commercial advantage and so on.

Ken argues for a consequentialist justification of war, namely that it is justified whenever the anticipated benefits outweigh the costs. Although he covers himself with the caveat ‘That sort of exercise is not without its own difficulties when many of the consequences can’t easily be measured with precision in advance’ he doesn’t ask who is to make the judgement. The implicit answer is that the government that decides to go to war should make it. I’d suggest that, given this answer, every war in history would pass Ken’s test.