Jump to content

Iraq disarmament crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Snoyes (talk | contribs) at 00:51, 10 March 2003 (added paragraph about other signatories of ICC treaty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In the decade following the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations passed 16 Security Council resolutions calling for the disarmament of Iraq. In 1998, US President Bill Clinton expressed concerns about Iraq's failure to disarm, noting that he believed the country would give its weapons of mass destruction to other countries. Clinton also stated his belief that Saddam Hussein would eventually use these weapons - it was "only a matter of time." Paul Wolfowitz, the "hawkish" conservative military analyist for the Defense Department under Ronald Reagan, had formulated a new foreign policy with regard to Iraq and other "potential aggressor states", dismissing "containment" in favor of "preemption": Strike first to eliminate threats. Clinton, himself had begun plans to remove Hussein from power, which were put on hold when the UN, under Kofi Annan], brokered a deal wherein Iraq would allow weapons inspectors back into the country.

This was short lived, however, and Clinton, along with Bush Senior, Colin Powell, and other former Bush administration officials, dismissed calls for "preemption" in favor of continued "containment." This was the policy of George W. Bush as well for his first several months in office. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, killed what was then believed to be nearly ten-thousand people, and brought to life Wolfowitz's and other hawks' advocacy for "preemptive action"; and Iraq was wideley agreed to be a likeley subject of this new policy. Powell has continued to support the philosophy behind containment; as a moderated degree of action, and it is his advice which President Bush has balanced with Wolfowitz's calls to action for a moderated approach, beginning with the US appeals to the UN which resulted in UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

During most of 2002 and into 2003, the United States government has called for "regime change" in Iraq and threatened to use military force to overthrow the Iraqi government unless Iraq rids itself of all weapons of mass destruction and convinces the UN that it has done so. See also Disarmament of Iraq. US diplomatic pressure to bring Iraq to compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441, has created a diplomatic crisis in the UN, where some are in agreement with the US position, while others are dissenting; notably France, Germany, Belgium, China and Russia.

The US has given the following reasons for its seeking to force Iraq's compliance:

  1. That the government of Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, are anti-democratic and violate human rights - and has even been implicated in attempts at genocide.
  2. That the government of Iraq has caches of weapons of mass destruction, i.e. biological, chemical, as well as has secret programs to produce nuclear weapons.
  3. That the government of Iraq has supported terrorist operations and groups, and is likely to supply them with weapons of mass destruction at some future point.

Several close allies of the U.S. (e.g. Germany, Belgium and France), although mainly sharing that estimation of the United States, oppose a military intervention because they claim that it will not decrease but increase the risk of terrorist attacks. Although the UK and governments of other members of the EU and NATO also support the US position, opinion polls show that in general their populations are against an attack, very much against without strong UN Security Council support. February 15, 2003, peace marches demonstrated the capacity of the peace movement to mobilize hundreds of thousands in the major cities of Europe, and almost as many in major cities of North America - which itself seems to be influencing the US position back towards the UN.

The serious concerns of war opponents arise in part from a fear of US hegemony (NATO nations with proportionately larger Muslim populations, e.g. France, Canada, disproportionately seem to have this view). However, most governments and US sympathizers state that their concern rises from the estimation that a military way of solving will foment more radical Islamism and terrorism, and question all borders in that region (especially in Kurdistan, a disputed region that demographically includes areas in Turkey, Iran and Syria as well as Iraq - see also the frequent wars between Arab nations in Middle East conflict). Perhaps most importantly it is thought to jeopardize all efforts of supporting nonviolent democratic Islam, led by moderates who are themselves generally against a war. For most war opponents, the American intention largely exceeds the fate of Iraqi disarmament. The relationship between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden appears forged for hiding other goals. Beyond disarmament, it is in Saudi Arabia that Bush is interested. It is in Riyadh that are the financial and strategic keys of the Middle-East.

These allies and movements prefer a diplomatic solution to disarm Iraq and support democratization in the region (similar to Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik in the 1970s which finally led to the peaceful revolutions in the Eastern Bloc in 1989).

Other opponents of the American invasion plan say that the US's reasons are selective and ultimately insufficient, pointing out that states that the US regards as friendly to it share some of these attributes. For example, Saudi Arabia is not a democracy and is closely connected to the terrorists who executed the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon. Also, Kuwait did not become a democracy with universal suffrage after the UN-Iraq War. Many states have weapons of mass destruction, the US more than any other, and the US itself (they claim) has not only supported terrorist operations and groups, but also engaged in terrorism.

Many opponents of the plan also claim that some or all of the above claims are vastly misrepresented by the Bush administration, especially in the connection between Iraq and terrorist groups. Fundamentalist Muslim groups generally do not support Iraq, as it is a secular nation that does not enforce what they perceive as Muslim law dictated by the Koran - in a tape reputedly released by Osama bin Laden in Feburary 2003 Saddam Hussein is referred to as an 'ignorant infidel' and placed only second on the list of evils, after an invasion by the United States - of course collaboration between them would likely result in just such a tape, and it is impossible to verify that such tapes do not come from the CIA, as is widely believed about all such evidence in the Arab world.

Although G. W. Bush originally stated that existing resolutions were sufficient to justify the US launching a war, Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, insisted that the UN must be involved, and it is widely believed that Colin Powell, US secretary of state, agreed strongly with this view, and that a new resolution was required.

The United States led the tumultuous effort within the United Nations to pass UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which called for sweeping new powers for weapons inspectors within Iraq and threatens "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to comply with the resolution. This measure has been successful, according to the peace faction, as Iraq has allowed inspections to continue (after a four-year hiatus) soon after the measure passed, and has responded in a timely fashion to concerns raised about it.

Others, including Colin Powell and Hans Blix, hold that Iraq has never complied fully with the terms of this resolution. Iraq was supposed to exhaustively list its existing weapons of mass destruction by December 8th 2002, and the inspectors would then confirm their existence and subsequent destruction. Inspection is not supposed to be a game of 'Hide and Seek', but a verification of disarmament, and inspectors are not trained as detectives, nor should the onus of proof fall upon them to find such weapons. Suspicion of withholding such evidence is enough to violate the terms of 1441. However, factions differ on whether 'serious consequences' are necessarily inclusive of an outright invasion of Iraq.

In February 2003 the effort to draft a second resolution in the UN Security Council was underway. It was influenced at least in part by a near-revolt inside the UK Labour Party, which has the power to remove Tony Blair as PM of the UK, and which has made clear that without another resolution, Blair is proceeding without the support of most of the UK's voting population, which is strongly against a war including only US and UK forces. Current events in this effort are dealt with further below.

Authority under International Law

The position under international law is unclear. Article 2 of the United Nations Charter forbids UN members from employing "the threat or use of force" against other states in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, but it does not explicitly require UN authorization for the use of force. The United States and Britain have said repeatedly that they are willing to invade Iraq with or without Security Council authorization.

The United States has does not recognize the jurisdiction of any international court over its citizens or military, holding that the United States Supreme Court is the final authority. One example of this policy is that the United States did not ratify the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, and on May 6, 2002 it informed the UN that it has no intention to join the treaty.

As of Febuary 10 neither Iraq nor the United States have ratified the ICC treaty, and therefore a US attack on Iraq would not fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. The actions of signatories such as the United Kindom and Spain would however fall under the ICC jurisdiction.

Authority under US Constitution

The Constitution grants the power to declare war exclusively to Congress, but declares the President to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Because of this division of power, there has long been controversy regarding the authority of the President outside of a declared war. Nonetheless, of the hundreds of times the United States has exercised force outside its borders, only five have been as part of a declared war.

In 1973, amid increasing domestic controversy about the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of the president to undertake prolonged military action without Congressional authority. No president since has recognized the constitutionality of this act, and most legal scholars believe it would not survive a challenge in court.

To avoid initiating a crisis under the War Powers Resolution, the Bush Administration sought explicit approval from the Congress to exercise force in Iraq. On October 2, 2002, the Congress passed a joint resolution which explicitly authorized the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.

Iraqi opposition groups

In early August of 2002, US Vice President Dick Cheney met with leaders of the Iraqi opposition groups, pledging that the Bush Administration intended to replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic government. This pledge is viewed cynically by those who recall G. H. W. Bush's call for Iraqis to overthrow Saddam in 1991, which led to the murder of a large number of Shiites in Southern Iraq when US air forces held back and led Saddam's helicopters fly in the southern no-fly zone to defeat the uprising. Cheney was the Secretary of Defense in that first Bush administration.

Dick Cheney, in his role as Vice President of the United States, has taken the lead in advocating an invasion, maintaining that it is foolish to wait until Iraq has completed construction of a nuclear weapon. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay have also been vocal in urging an invasion. Colin Powell appeared to favor diplomatic engagement, until very recently (see below).

War on Terrorism

As part of its War on Terrorism, the President of the United States, George W. Bush, announced on September 4, 2002 the Bush Doctrine that the United States would launch a preemptive military strike at any nation that could put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists, and had a right to do so. At the same time he stated he would seek congressional approval for a strike against Iraq, which he received shortly before the mid-term elections in November.

Continued at:

See Also

Iraqi Regular Army, military of Iraq, Iraqi Republican Guard, Hubbert peak


Further Reading

  • Threatening Storm: The United States and Saddam's Iraq, Kenneth Pollack, Random House, 2002, hardcover, 494 pages, ISBN 0375509283
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_disarmament_crisis&oldid=735788"