Was the Iraq war legal - Essay Example

Was the Iraq war legal? Iraq war with reference to UN and Security Council regulations Iraq war officially started on 19 March 2003 when the then America’s President George Bush ordered the incursion of Iraq. In his address to the nation that night, Bush held that the purpose of America’s military operation was to disarm Iraq, safeguard the world from danger as well as free Iraqi people. In order to accomplish these war goals, United States and Great Britain as its coalition partner employed military force to strike pertinent military areas. The reason for attacking significant areas was to undermine Saddam Hussein’s capacity to retaliate. Several scholars and international analysts have explored some of the intentions as to why United States invaded Iraq, even without UN approval, yet US is a UN member state. One of the most debated reasons for 2003 invasion was to revenge against Iraq following the Washington’s September 11 bombing. United States invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 following the September 11 bombing. This was the beginning of the global war on terrorism. A year later, the US congress passed a decree allowing use of force against Iraq. The law empowered the president to pronounce war without getting permission from United Nations Security Council. For that reason, United States spoke in one voice to attack Iraq as an issue of foreign policy. The invasion of Iraq seeks an indispensable and overdue discharge of allied forces and United States from old policies that were developed in the cold war days. The policy constructs had become outdated and an impediment to apparent and a rational opinion on foreign policy. By 2003, the old bipolar structures of the world community founded on the balance of power between Soviet Union and United States had disappeared. United States and the Soviet Union were the two powers prior to the end of the cold war. United States remained as the major world power following the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union. Hence, US have taken advantage of this superiority to put in force its preferences whenever it deems possible, even at the peril of eliminating its closest allies. The reason is that the US adopts a realist policy as the basis of carrying out its foreign policy. Successive American governments have followed offensive realist approaches and refused to agree or endorse any treaties, whose objectives do not correspond to United States interests. In a bid to strengthen its power, United States has repeatedly called for greater global acceptance of democratic ideologies, as well as an increased role of global institutions. Ironically, the United States has ignored global institutions like United Nations (Jakobsen and Jakobsen 2009). Another underlying reason behind Iraq incursion is the US energy policy, despite perpetrators stressing that Iraq war was solely for self defense against weapons of mass destruction, and for humanitarian intercession, as well. US policy on energy is based on a strong fervor that the nations’ needs may only be met through economic and military superiority. A principal upshot of this policy is that corporations that have associations with the oil sector are not to be defied in any manner. America tolerates sufficient refinery capacity and seeks alternative sources of energy elsewhere. Accordingly, once publicized policies to develop artificial fuels to recover oil from shale have resulted into a scam on the country’s taxpayers. Additionally, United States vehicle makers whose profits depend on guzzlers have the lowest convoy average mpg in many years. As global demand for oil increases, American leaders have come to increasingly depend on their military strength when required to take control of oil producing nations such as Iraq, which are less accustomed to America’s fuel precedence. Hence, United States decided to meet its energy needs by continuing a geopolitical realm using force on Iraq (Hinnebusch 2007). Some manifestations to this assertion were the posting of more than one hundred thousand troops, and additional fourteen thousand oil infrastructure security guards in Iraq in 2005. America also put some warships to defend oil tankers in and around the Persian Gulf. Moreover, US private oil companies such as ExxonMobil and shell have a heavy presence in Iraq (Rhodes 2003). Iraq invasion may be seen as a legal debate in reference to United Nations and Security Council regulations. British and US governments held that the war on Iraq was legal, basing their assertion on the argument of upholding United Nation’s 1441 resolution, as well as defending their national countries against attackers. The assertion on self defense was founded on UN charter article 51 that states “nothing in the current agreement shall weaken the essential right of individual or joint self defense if an armed aggression happens” (Eickelmann, Nelson and Lansford 2005). Apparently, Bush government held that its right to defense rationally included the right to preempt use of weapons of mass destruction. The move was informed on the belief that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Bush said that precautionary war against prospective nuclear production was lawful in his address to the UN General Meeting that was held in September 2002. The other reason advanced for the invasion was that no new resolution was required for Security Council authorization since the current resolutions already gave that authorization. This was based on chapter VII on claims of threat to global peace and security. These assertions were inadequately presented, and the Security Council ultimately bypassed the integrity of the entire charter system as it watched US directly defy it. Resolution 1441 of 2002 that threatened Iraq with severe consequences was also used as a reason for invading Iraq. The resolution stated that Security Council would render itself irrelevant if it did not respond efficiently and instantaneously on Iraq. The British and United States governments held that the expression “severe consequences” then did not necessitate a second resolution. Illegality of the war arises from the verity that article 51 allows a nation to go to war in self defense “if an armed attack happens”. However, Iraq had not performed an armed attack on either Britain or US. In addition, the Security Council permits a country to use force without its authorization, until it has taken certain measures to uphold global peace and security. The Security Council had already taken steps to uphold peace and security through its resolutions. Therefore, Iraq invasion was not allowed. In addition, resolution 1441 on “severe consequences “did not imply approval by the Security Council that US and Britain should go into war with Iraq. Further, the resolution did not prompt any player to go to war, nor authorize the use of military force (D'Anieri 2009). Effects of Iraq war on its citizens The invasion of Iraq had serious consequences on the Iraq citizens. Massive numbers of violent deaths were reported across Iraq. In addition, the breaking of Iraq army by US left Iraq borders and government buildings without protection. Further, Iraq war destabilized the entire country, leaving citizens in social, political and economic suffering. The war left the wider population without resources, resorting most of them to take part in insurgence as part of desperate measure. Military raids in Shiite and Sunni regions resulted in fatalities of many civilians, as well as heightened fear and tensions (Hinnebusch 2007). The practice of taking citizens into custody by US military and failure to report the seizure to their relations further created confusion and suffering among citizens. Iraqis could not go to work, they could not send their children to school, nor give a respectable life for themselves. The raids made citizens feel unsafe in their own homes. These resorted in a feeling of inferiority as they felt that no one cared for them. Due to deaths of many civilians, Iraqis felt that their blood was so cheap. Multinational forces in Iraq declined to report on the actual number of deaths, and sometimes the figures were underestimated (Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group 2008). In conclusion, the invasion of Iraq by America in 2003 was unjustified as it was a misinterpretation of article 51 of the UN and chapter VII of the Security Council. Rather, America invaded Iraq because of oil and deployed its companies in rich oil fields. The invasion led to death and suffering of Iraq citizens in their own country. Therefore, America’s invasion of Iraq was illegal. Bibliography: D'Anieri, P., 2009. International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Eickelmann, A., Nelson, E. and Lansford, T., 2005. Justice and Violence: Political Violence, Pacifism And Cultural Transformation. Farnharm: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Hinnebusch, R. 2007. The American Invasion of Iraq: Causes and Consequences. Accessed on 4 May 2013 from: http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Raymond- Hinnebusch.pdf> pp 9-27. Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group, 2008. Violence related mortality in Iraq from 2002- 2006. New England journal of medicine, 358(1), 484-493. Jakobsen, T.G. and Jakobsen, J., 2009. The Game: A Rational Actor Approach to the US-led Invasion of Iraq, 2003. Strategic Analysis, 33(5), 664–674. Rhodes, E., 2003. The Imperial Logic of Bush's Liberal Agenda. Survival (spring), 45(1), 131-54. Read More