Mack asked:

In a report to the United Nations on February 14, 2003 International Atomic Energy Agency Director
General, Mohammed ElBaradei said, "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited
nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq."

To take another example, a documents which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of
chemical agent were unaccounted for and/ were destroyed, and Hans Blix, Chief Weapons Inspector
said, "We [the United Nation and United States] must not jump to the conclusion that they exist."

How can Iraq PROVE IT DOESN'T HAVE weapons of mass destruction?

Isn't that "trying to prove a negative"?

============

This is a complex question and requires a complex answer. It is not up to Iraq to 'prove the negative',
but rather up the UN Inspectors to prove the 'positive', i.e. that Iraq is in possessionof WMDs. To this
point in the two reports Hans Blix has delivered to the UN Security Council the case 'have not proved
the existence of WMDs'. Thus, as it stands at the moment, Iraq has not been found to be in 'material
breach.' Thus, the negative is not proved because the positive has not been proved. The key to this
question lies in the understanding of UN Security Council Resolution 14.41. UNSCR 14.41 was a
political manipulation by the right-wing hawks of the American administration, and by the injudicious
support of that Administration by elements of the British Government. It was a resolution which did
not initially receive the backing of the American Administration who wished to initiate military
hostilities immediately. However, the resolution serves as a legitimisation of a strategy of the 'hawks'
who are concerned that the Weapons Inspectors have notproved the positive. The strategy was two
fold: the Weapons Inspectors would deliver the report of Iraq non-compliance (which has not yet
happened) and the 'hawks' in the meantime, would prepare for military hostilities though massive
build up of men/ women and the machinery of war.

UNSCR 14.41 is an International agreement which comprises of a multi-level approach to this serious
issue. Both the American administration and the British Government has signed up to 14.41 as the
method of determination as to what action should follow, if Iraq is found to be in 'material breach'. It
also states that non-compliance and 'material breach' will bring with it 'serious consequences' but it
does not state what those serious consequences are. That is for the International community to
decide, but the hawks have already pre-empted the decision of the International Community and
made it clear that 'serious consequences' means pre-emptive military hostilities. But, as yet, no case
has been proved. Since it is a resolution of the UN, both America and Britain have signed up to the
multi-level, multi-strategic approach and should they act outside the confines of the terms of the
resolution they will be in contravention of International Law and the UN Charter on human rights.

So, the negative does not need to be proved, the positive does. Only then in the proving of the
positive can the International community decide which course of action should be undertaken. It is
also not outside the bounds of possibility that the 'hawks' of the American Administration are
disappointed that the UN Weapons Inspectors have not, as yet, declared Iraq in material breach.
Attempts to introduce emotive issues to the Americans (a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda) are
futile since resolution 14.41 makes no mention of this, and this connection most certainly has not
been proved, indeed, as Colin Powell found out, is dismissed by the intelligence agencies.
Consequently, there is no internationally legal justification for a pre-emptive military strike, nor is there
a moral case for military hostilities under the terms of UNSCR 14.41. The case must first be proved.
To date, it has not been and therefore the case of proving the negative does not exist — the UN
Inspectorate is seeking to determine whether Iraq does have WMDs, not whether they do not. Thus, a
war is neither morally or ethically justified. It may be commercially justified (the ensuring of the
constant flow of oil for the Western/ American financial markets) but that is markedly different from
the moral case. Prove the positive before determining the negative.

Fr Seamus Mulholland OFM

Looking at an argument's logical form, i.e. considering the structure of an argument without the
content you can prove a negative. Consider:

"If A occurs then B occurs.

B does not occur.

Therefore A does not occur."

We have proved a negative here, that is, that it is not the case that A occurs. Now to reintroduce
content to bring it back to Iraq, consider:

"1. If Iraq has WMD then it will leave evidence of them.

2. There is no evidence of them.

3. Therefore it is not the case that Iraq has WMD."

Now I'm not asserting that any of the propositions are true merely that if they were true then you could
reach the negative conclusion.

Considering the issue from an epistemological perspective instead of a logical one. Now it seems that
we have two hypothesis to consider:

" Either, 4. Iraq has WMD

Or, 5. It is not the case that Iraq has WMD."

Now to prove 4 all we need is one example of a WMD to prove it, whereas to prove' 5 we would need
to rule the possibility of WMD being anywhere at all.Fortunately our standards of proof never require
us to have absolute certainty regarding a proposition. Even to prove 4 beyond any doubt we would
need to rule out any possibility at all of doubt which, thanks to sceptical arguments, we never can do
(at least with respect to factual knowledge). So if we accept that we don't need to be absolutely
certain of the truth a proposition we can see that we can prove a negative proposition. If all we need
is to be beyond reasonable doubt, then it is a case of weighing up the probability of Iraq having WMD
given the evidence we have.

Now the final issue remaining is that of a person who wishes to hold on to proposition 4 come what
may, (perhaps as pretext to military action!). If the weapons inspectors say there is no evidence of 4
all that person need say is that they haven't proved it, perhaps because the Iraqis are so sneaky and
clever that they can hide them perfectly. The problem is that the two people are using the word 'prove'
in different ways.

To conclude if we demand that proof be absolutely certain in order to accept a proposition then it is
unlikely that we can ever prove that Iraq has no WMD, but then by the same standards we can never
prove absolutely that they do.

Mike Lee

Some 'doubts' have application in the real world, while others exist only in philosophers' fertile
imaginations.

If Hans Blix finds what appears to be a nuclear warhead, and all the scientific tests confirm that it is a
nuclear warhead, then only an idiot would say, 'Ah well, but it could be a cleverly engineered illusion,
or a dream'. Yes, there is a logical possibility that we are living in a Matrix-world, and all our beliefs
about the world around us are false. But no-one would ever consider modifying their actions to take
account of that 'possibility' — unless of course evidence that this world isa Matrix-world were to
appear.

On the other hand, if the most thorough searches have not revealed a nuclear warhead, if all the Iraqi
nuclear scientists have passed lie detector tests etc. etc. then it still does not require a science fiction
scenario to imagine that hidden away in some cave or abandoned mind somewhere is an arsenal of
nuclear warheads. No-one can be thatcertain.

So, the question remains, How certain do we need to be? How high is the standard of 'probable proof'
to be set? Probability is relative to evidence. But you need to have enough evidence to make your
calculation, otherwise you're just guessing. I think that this is a case where there is no rational way to
assess probability, at least, not without a far more thorough search than any that has been
undertaken to date.

Geoffrey Klempner