|
BNW |
|
B N W: Biafra Nigeria World News |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UN and the American invasion of Iraq
RECENT comments by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, on the illegality or otherwise of the American invasion of Iraq have, once more, focused attention on the danger which a unilateral deployment of force by a great power poses to international peace and security.
Although the international system is a Hobbesian world in which self-interest largely determines the action of states, these interests have to be asserted within the ambit of international law and in consonance with the Charter of the United Nations. The alternative will be a chaotic and unstable international system, too dangerous for the pursuit of the interests of the component actors.
In the course of an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) World Service, the UN Secretary-General agreed with the interviewer that the invasion of Iraq was "illegal" because "it was not in conformity with the UN charter". In his view the decision to invade should have been made by the Security Council through a second resolution following Iraq's failure to comply with an earlier resolution over weapons inspections. Operations such as the invasion of Iraq, he stressed further, require "UN approval and much broader support from the International Community."
Barely a week after the interview the Secretary-General seized the opportunity offered by the opening of the annual session of the UN General Assembly to amplify the importance of the rule of law in international politics. "Those who seek to bestow legitimacy", he stressed, "must themselves embody it, and those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it."
The Secretary-General's statement was of course an indirect reference to, as well as a refutation of the argument advanced by the United States, Britain, and Australia " the three states whose forces took active part in the invasion of Iraq " that the invasion was in conformity with international law. For instance, in response to the Secretary-General's BBC interview, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, had argued that "the action was entirely valid in international law terms". Similarly, the British government argued that previous resolutions provided the legal basis for toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein and that the invasion was therefore "not only lawful but necessary".
In 2003 American and British forces, with a smaller contingent of Australian Special Forces, invaded Iraq ostensibly because the regime of Saddam Hussein harboured weapons of mass destruction. Following in the wake of the invasion of Afghanistan the invasion of Iraq was clearly part of the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emption which it justified on the need to defend the United States from terrorists' attacks like those of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon.
The Bush administration had based its invasion on four principal arguments: that Saddam Hussein was "(1) an almost uniquely undeterrable aggressor who would seek any opportunity to kill Americans regardless of risk to himself or his country; (2) he was cooperating with al-Qaeda and had even assisted in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States; (3) he was close to acquiring nuclear weapons; and (4) he possessed chemical and biological weapons that could be used to devastating effect against American civilians at home or U.S. troops in the Middle East."
A year after the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, evidence has since come to light demonstrating quite vividly that the threat assessments used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq were either grossly exaggerated or totally baseless. Instead it appears that the administration had decided early in 2001, even before the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre, to bring about regime change in Iraq.
The invasion led to the collapse of the Iraqi State and its degeneration into a state of anarchy. Iraq has now become a haven for terrorists, a country in which hostages are taken and beheaded with utter disregard for the sanctity of life. Thousands of Iraqi civilians and foreigners have died in the chaos that followed in the wake of the invasion. Having created this state of anarchy the Bush administration and its allies are now seeking the assistance of the UN to restore order in Iraq. In his address to the UN General Assembly President Bush called on the organisation to "do more to help build an Iraq that is secure, democratic, federal and free".
It is against this background that the statement by the UN Secretary-General should be viewed. Perhaps, if the administration had followed the track outlined by the UN Secretary-General, the President's call would not have been necessary in the first instance.
The United States itself is now perceived as a threat to international peace and security, a hyper-power which pays scant regard to international law and international opinion in the pursuit of its national interest. Such perceptions cannot in the final analysis advance the interests of the United States. It has not in fact enhanced American national security since the threat which Iraq supposedly posed to the United States proved to be chimerical.
The invasion has made the United States and its allies much more unpopular in the world; it has increased support and sympathy for anti-Americanism, and made the world much more conducive to terrorism. The world has become more unsafe, which is rather ironic, since the invasion was based on the need to make the world safer for democracy and the rule of law.
The United States might do well to rethink the fundamental precepts of its foreign policy, if it wishes to really make the world safe for democracy. It should de-emphasise unilateralism, and work within the precinct of international law and the charter of the United Nations. The UN Secretary-General deserves commendation for drawing the attention of the most powerful nation in the world to the fact that it cannot act outside the boundaries of the rule of law if it wishes others to do so.
|
|
||||||||||||
