International Relations - Essay Example

?Topic:  International Relations Should the US have obtained permission from the UN to invade Iraq in 2003? Why or why not? As much as the United States opted to become a member country of the United Nations and party to the ratification of internal laws and agreements, it was mandatory for it to obtain permission from the UN to invade Iraq in 2003. This is mainly due to the voluntary decision of US leaders to become a member of the UN and thus, subject to all agreements enacted at the UN level. It is mandatory for all member-countries to abide by the rules and regulations of the UN most especially when these were made with the consent of its members, and US is obviously one of them. There were several instances that the US have practiced their obligation before the members of the UN Security Council and one of these instances were when US Secretary Colin Powell presented the George Bush’s view on February 5 before the council [1]. This meant that the US respected their role and the role of the UN with regards to the international conflict. Powell argued that Resolution 1441 of the Security Council aimed at disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Powell insisted that Iraq was already found guilty of material breach whatever hat may mean. But it would soon be established but no sooner than in 2002 that the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no trace of evidence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq [2]. The US invasion of Iraq also concluded that Iraq ended its nuclear, chemical and biological armaments program by 1991 and remnants of pre-1991 did not merit justification for the invasion [3]. Powell also argued that Iraq was a threat to the US and its allies contending that loose terrorist groups might get hold of Iraq’s weapons and use them against innocent civilians around the world [4]. He insisted that Saddam Hussein will not be sane enough to cooperate with terrorists and use the weapons to attack without warning. The permission of allowing US to use force on Iraq was not granted by the Council. The UN Charter provides that use of force under Article 2(4) was prohibited except for self-defense under Article 51, and when the Security Council authorized the use to force to protect international peace and security under Chapter VII of the Charter [5]. In addition, Article 51 arose from the need for imminent self-defense when Council deliberation can no longer be an applicable due to the urgency of an action. The US appeared exaggerating at that time to argue that Article 51 was applicable for Iraq to be invaded by force by the US. 2. What are the implications of the Iraq war for nation-state sovereignty? There are various negative implications [6] of the Iraq war for nation-state sovereignty but with contrasting meanings for nations depending on the level of military might. The Iraq war meant that the United States remain a superpower to reckon with. Its administration decides when, where, who, and why attack an individual, or a nation-state. This was a dangerous period of democracy and international relations as US through its president George Bush defied the mandate of the international body when it comes to actions beyond the US borders and territory. It flouted its force and might among the organization of nations, and together with the United Kingdom which supported the US, they showed that their intents backed by might and a blinded military are above any kind of international law and understanding. It acted like the Nazi Germany for occupying other nations. The international laws that they tried to use as an excuse to invade Iraq were lame and a breach of UN membership. They have brazenly shown that for economic reasons that will benefit their oil magnates – British’ Shell and 14 other contractors [7]. For the part of Iraq and other nations that future US leaders will have their hot eyes on like Iran and North Korea, and the rest of other nation states in the world who cannot stand the force of a superpower, the implication was that nobody is safe from the wrath and madness of the leaders of a country like the United States. This meant that all of their leader’s paranoia will be detrimental to any target person or nation no matter how unfounded the mad man’s suspicions were, like Bush’s. The implication for international organizations like the United Nations was that international treatises and bodies like the UN yielded no power against a madman like Bush. It should be reminded that not all of the US or all of the UK wanted to quash Saddam Hussein and the millions of Iraqi casualties during the invasion. It meant that membership to the UN as well as following its Charter remains under the will of the president of the United States, and this should be immediately addressed by the UN and all other nation-state leaders. Conclusion Until today, only George Bush and the oil giants can justify the invasion of Iraq. Many of the leaders concerned cannot not see and remain blind on the tragedy their madness and paranoia have done to millions of Iraqis and even the US and UK soldiers and their families. Greed has taken over policy disguised as “economy” and nothing could stop these people from betraying their mandate, their peoples, and peoples outside their sovereignty. It cannot be said, however, that the US (and the UK) gained anything at all positive of the war except for oil contracts. Trillions of US dollars were also wasted aside from the lives of all parties in the war. It seemed for a while that the rule of atrocity was the order of that year when Iraq was invaded. Nations and leaders must be vigilant not only of their impending enemy nations but most importantly, mad men like George Bush because even in carefully laid-out international organizations supported by all nations, with the best of aims backed by charters and mandate cannot stand against one mad man’s decision. And history attests to the truthfulness of this. Reference: 1, 4, & 5 Taylor, 2002. 2 Blix, H. March 7, 2003. "Transcript of Blix's UN presentation". Accessed from http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-07/us/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix_1_inspection-effort-unmovic-unscom?_s=PM:US 3 Shrader, K. (June 22, 2006) "New Intel Report Reignites Iraq Arms Fight" Associated Press accessed from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201475.html 6 The Guardian Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger The Guardian, Thursday 20 November 2003 Accessed from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1 7 Aljazeera. 2009. Oil firms awarded contract.11, December. Accessed from http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/200912117243440687.html Read More