Foreign Policy in the Global Relation: Traditions and Conventions of Individual Countries - Essay Example

UK foreign policy towards Iraqi war in 2003 Introduction Foreign policies are laws, regulations and strategies established by countries to steer their relationships with other countries on issues of global concern such as trade, security, politics, social justice, legislations and technologies. Usually, countries develop and exercise foreign policies that best serve their individual interests and concerns. The policies are usually set to maintain and protect traditions and conventions of individual countries. As one of the leading global powers, United Kingdom (UK) always has to establish clear foreign policies and share with the entire world. It is due to this international positioning of UK that all countries tend to be sensitive to its foreign policies at any given time. The nature of foreign policy adopted by UK at any given time impacts global communities in different ways. The policies may favor relations with some countries while compromising relations with others. In spite of being top global power, UK adopted unstable, unclear, unreasonable and baseless foreign policy prior to war in Iraq in 2003. At the time, UK seemed to adopt somewhat confused and undirected foreign policy based on irrationality and instead tuned to support US foreign policy. Plan for Iraq war Upon the negotiation to end the Gulf region war by UN in 1991, US lost faith and trust on Iraqi systems and attempted severally to influence NATO towards offensive action on Iraq. The plan for war against Iraq in what emerged as Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and including other perceived undemocratic Arab countries like Syria, Libya, Somali and Sudan established earlier than November 3, 1992 when the Washing post newspaper disclosed about US plans to use its military force to punish countries holding biological, nuclear and chemical weapons. In 1998, a private letter addressed to President Bill Clinton and signed by perceived administrators close to George Bush urged for possible removal of Saddam Hussein from power (Dover 2007, p. 11). In 2000, US through its new policy dubbed “Strategy, Force and Resources for a New Century” underlined the importance of US to counter threats of weapons of mass destructions held by Iraq, North Korea and Iran. The policy also reiterated how US had ensured high security in the Gulf region and that it was not ready to allow any compromises of the achievements and continued security in the region, its allies, and its homeland. The policy followed a report by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) mandated to conduct disarmaments exercise in 1991 after Gulf war report that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction made in 1980s, but did not continue further enrichment after the war. It is due to the disclosures of the report that US, UK and friendly countries under UN strategized containment policy against Iraq for threatening to the world. In the policy, UN Security Council had to impose economic sanctions on Iraq. The policy also advocated for regions of “no fly zones” by Iraqi planes or helicopters that had no approval of US and UK security forces installed to protect Shias and Kurdistan that seemed to be foes of Saddam’s regime. UK and USA seemed to have agitated for such a stringent policy as punishment against Iraq for breaching the Biological Weapons Convention signed in 1972 by the global community. The duo also accused Saddam’s regimes of being undemocratic and suppressive on the people of Iraq. As a way of protesting against strict UN surveillance, Saddam Hussein in 1998 flushed off UN officials who inspected weapons in Iraq. Davis (2006, p. 11) elucidates that the move made US to enact the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that formalized removal of Saddam from power a key foreign policy. The Act among other things, allocated over $97 million as support fund for Iraqi democratic opposition to facilitate preparation for democratic regime change. This confirmed determination and intention of US to oust Saddam Hussein from power (Doves 2007, p. 19). The Act appeared as a sudden shift from the initial United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 that targeted specifically weapons and disarmament of the same. Later, US in collaboration with UK launched the Operation Desert Fox with main intention of impeding Saddam from conducting any form of biological, chemical or nuclear weapon enrichments. The inauguration of President Bush in 2000 worked to spur US’s aggressive policy on Iraq. Prior to elections, Republican Party conducted campaigns with implementation of the Iraq Liberty Act and shadowed plan to oust Saddam as the main agendas. According to McGoldrick (2004, p.25), the 9/11 attack on the critical US and world infrastructures further exacerbated US desire to attack Iraq claiming that Saddam had very secretive relation with Osama bin Laden. Some of Bush administrators favored immediate offensive on Iraq while other argued for international coalition and securing of authorization of the UN (Nikolaev & Hakanen 2006, p. 16). However, Bush remained determined and reserved an option of invading Iraq should UN deny such approval. President Bush formally informed the world about intention to attack Iraq on September 12, 2002 during UN Security Council meeting. Among NATO, UK is the only member that expressed direct support for US. Others like France and Germany faulted the intention and argued for diplomatic means towards inspection and thereof disarmament of any weapons. US Congress in October 2002 moved ahead to pass the Joint Resolution that empowered President Bush to use any possible means and techniques to counter the perceived Iraqi aggression (Rai 2002, p. 24). The differences among the NATO prompted the UN Security Council through Resolution 1441 to authorize resumption of weapon inspection exercise with a promise of serious consequences in case Iraq failed to comply. In response to the resolution, Russia and France that are members of Security Council required confirmation that the said serious consequences did not cover intention to use force in overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s government. In the Resolution 1441, UN Security Council afforded Iraq final opportunity for compliance with inspection program. Resolution 1441 proposed for formation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to conduct the renewed disarmament exercise. In February 2003, the two bodies did not find any evidence connecting Iraq to weapons of mass destruction. Reaction of UK to the Iraq war plans As analyzed previously, it is evident that UK lacked clear policy or independent intention to involve in war against Iraq. UK only seemed to play sycophancy to US by supporting almost every plan and wish of US regarding the Iraqi war. To understand the argument, it is important to track the initial motive or purpose for which USA, UK and allies like Poland, Denmark, Australia and Spain intended tightened conditions for Saddam Hussein. Originally, the main reason was disarmament of Iraqi of its weapons (Great Britain 2005, p. 7). Failure of Iraq to comply with the UN Resolution 1441 would attract serious consequences. Suddenly in October 1998, US started losing faith in Hussein’s ability to comply with disarmament that he suppressed in August 1998. In October 2002, President George Bush became public and global and declared that US policy was not only to disarm Iraq but also to cause regime change (Sherwell 2013). Prior to this declaration, UK has said nothing concerning the sudden change in what was initially disarmament exercise. In fact, Tony Blair while responding to parliamentary inquest in September 2002 on whether the mission in Iraq had changed from disarmament to regime change seemed to approve that regime change would be the best thing to happen. However, Prime Minister Blair reiterated to the parliament that the main objective of Britain was to ensure disarmament of Iraq and not regime change (Davis 2006, p. 5). Blair further expressed his belief that Saddam Hussein’s government was brutal and undemocratic, did enormous damage to and that Saddam was literally bad for Iraqis. Even with such confession, Blair insisted that there was no change in the initial plans of disarmament. The British political class fell prey to the war propaganda spread by Prime Minister Tony Blair and approve deployment of British forces to join US in invading Iraq. Only a quarter of the members of parliament faulted the move including 121 members of the Blair’s Liberal Democratic Party (Great Britain 2012, p. 23). Opponents of the Bill to deploy British soldiers to war cited the need to wait for authorization by UN Security Council and substantive determination of legal frameworks justifying the planned war on Iraq. Blair’s administration would snub the views of the opposed members of parliament and deploy soldiers. Majority of UK citizens also questioned the principles that governed or approved the attack on Iraq. On March 15, 2003 just three days prior to beginning of the first strike on Iraq, an estimated 2 million people attended a protest organized by Stop the War Coalition in London (Laughland 2012). On the same day, the total global protests against attack on Iraqi estimated at 10 million people. To counter public distrust and opposition, Falconer and Sally Morgan who ranked high in the Blair’s administration compelled Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to declare that the war was legal to attract public support and pave way for invasion. Hutton (2013) with reference to the Chatham House report claims that Tony Blair acted according to pressure of the British Army that demanded for involvement in the Iraqi attack. The British Army purportedly gave Blair three packages to chose. First package advocated for allowing US to access British bases, Special Forces and intelligence assistance. Second package required Blair to deploy Royal Air and Royal Navy to support US and allied forces. The third package recommended for planning of ground invasion in Iraq. This action by British Army seems to relate to the joint military and security agreement signed between UK and USA after the end of cold war (Great Britain 2010, pg. 23). Oil as the underlying reason for US and UK offensive on Iraq in 2003 Britain and USA are the same countries that sponsored and assisted Iraqi nuclear, biological and chemical weapons enrichment in 1980s. Undercover investigations disclosed that Donald Rumsfeld who later became a close confidant of President George Bush met secretly with Saddam Hussein in 1983 and agreed on behalf of US to supply Iraq with weapons of mass destruction. Astonishingly, the deal also promised provision of loans to Saddam to use in acquiring the weapons. Iraq later used the weapons against its enemies with close support of USA and UK (Sobel, Furia & Barratt 2012, p. 53). As such, it sounded awkward for the two countries to stand and insist that Saddam Hussein illegally possessed weapons of mass destruction that threatened the world. The persistent accusations of the two countries against Saddam continued even when disarmament exercises proved that there were no new traces of weapons of mass destruction (Hinnebusch 2007, p. 6). As further justification of their course, USA with support of UK sought to prove to the world that Saddam Hussein had links with terrorist organization and particularly al-Qaeda. Bush’s administration with backing of Tony Blair repeatedly described Saddam’s regime as tyrannical and undemocratic and that it created a good breeding ground for terrorists. Late in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney sought to convince public that intelligence reports directly linked 9/11 planner by the name Mohamed Atta to senior intelligence officers in Iraq. This happened even when US intelligence reports appeared to be unclear about the claimed link between Saddam and the attack. The determination to spread war propaganda to gain public confidence and support saw Collin Powell in February 2003 attempt to assert that Saddam’s regime trained al Qaeda militants on how to make poison and deadly weapons. No significant evidence accompanied claims of possession of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq or the country’s relationship with al Qaeda. These facts and others discussed below affirms that joint USA and UK invasion in Iraq was because of oil. Iraq is the world’s second largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia with about 60% of global oil reserves. USA and UK own the largest oil companies that drilled oil in the Gulf region and Iraq in this case. President George Bush, his Vice Dick Cheney and big cartels in UK invested heavily in oil business in the Gulf region including Iraq (Weller 2010, p. 17). Sad event happened during the Iraqi nationalization process of 1972 that saw Saddam’s regime fight and expel foreign oil companies from accessing Iraqi oil reserves. In fact, Saddam exercised strict control on the flow of oil from Iraq into the global energy market. This move to the understanding of US and UK administrations would lead the world and US into serious energy crisis. USA and UK also considered the control exercised by Saddam on oil resources as strategies to raise oil prices, which would give countries in the Gulf region undeserving economic power traditionally enjoyed by USA and UK. the style of Saddam of manipulating global supply and hence price of oil defined main cause of development of strategies to fight and bring regime change in Iraq so that world could enjoy proper flow of oil (Habsburg 2013). As early as April 2001, the cabinet of President George Bush determined that the nature of Iraq control on flow of oil from the Middle East into the global market represented serious risk to US and that military intervention was necessary. In the 1970s, USA and UK signed agreement with Saudi Arabia, a major OPEC member that the cooperation’s oil would sell in dollars and euro (Chapman 2004). This agreement would help the two countries stay at the center of the global trade. Unfortunately, in 1999, Iran stopped using euro to price its oil. Saddam Hussein would later follow the same move in 2000. These sudden shifts threatened USA and UK who suspected that other OPEC countries would follow the same steps and devalue dollar and euro (Chapman 2004)). Additional threat to USA and UK attributed to move by Saddam Hussein to extend a favorable hand to oil investors from Russia, France, Germany and China. Considering that UK and USA companies had already existed Iraqi oil industry, the two countries feared that the new developments would divert their power to elsewhere. Fortunately, the pact signed by Iraq and Russian, French and Chinese companies would not materialize due to the existence of the UN sanctions (Hossein 2009). The post war plan on Iraq The main reason of USA and UK assault on Iraq in 2003 was to establish a regime change by overthrowing Saddam Hussein who hampered them from satisfying their interests as far as oil is concerned. US with support of UK protracted plans that would see a senior military officer of US together with few civilians hold power temporarily (Gilligan 2011). Iraqis would act as advisers to the interim government. USA and UK soldiers would also remain in Iraq until democratic election of new Iraqi leaders and as long as UK and USA oil companies continued to drill oil in the country. The military would then provide protection for the oil companies against assailants or militants. Leaders elected in the proposed election would initiate plans to privatize Iraqi oil industry to allow foreign companies access, drill and pump oil out of the country. In the plan, Halliburton oil company also formally managed by the then Vice President Dick Cheney would secure a government contract worth more than $900 million to supply oil to USA. Other US based firms like Fluor, Bechtel, Parsons and Louis Berger set to benefit from contracts that would result from post war success (Habsburg 2013). UK owned Shell and BP Oil Companies also contacted British government for contract consideration to share the post war Iraqi oil. Conclusion Foreign policies are regulations, interest and laws developed by countries to guide their relationship with other countries. Foreign policy define very crucial tool that assists countries to achieve their goals and needs in the global relation. UK as one of the leading global powers usually makes its policies open to the entire global community. However, the period prior to Iraqi invasion in 2003, UK seemed to lack stable and straightforward foreign policy. Instead, UK buried its focus on US and followed as well as supported every actions, thoughts and policy changes made by US with regard to the affairs of Middle East and Iraq in particular. During the time, UK’s foreign policy changed from disarmament of Iraq to changing Iraqi regime, to focus on the Middle East oil, to restoration of democracy in Iraq, to war against terrorism in Iraq, to supporting US and to disagreement with Germany and France. UK administration at that time forced the British foreign to change with every change in US foreign policy. This trend made British appear to lack monotony and independence in structuring its foreign policy. Largely, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair employed his individualistic tactics and preferences to influence the direction of UK foreign policy. References CHAPMAN, J. (2004). The real reasons Bush went to war. . DAVIS, J. (2006). Presidential policies and the road to the second Iraq war: from Forty One to Forty Three. Aldershot, England, Ashgate Pub. DOVER, R. (2007). Europeanization of British defence policy. Aldershot, Hampshire, England, Ashgate Pub. Co. GILLIGAN, A & COLLINS, N. (2011). Iraq War: timeline of Tony Blairs role. . GREAT BRITAIN. (2005). Foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism: sixth report of session 2004-05 ; report, together with formal minutes. [London], Stationery Office. GREAT BRITAIN. (2010). Global security : UK-US relations Sixth report of session 2009-2010, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 18 March 2010. London, Stationery Office. HABSBURG, J. (2013). The Debate: evidence of a serious conflict of interests in the U.S. Government over Iraq.< http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp>. HINNEBUSCH, R. (2007). The American Invasion of Iraq: Causes and Consequences. . HOSSEIN, A. (2009). US Attack on Iraq in 2003: Violation of International Humanitarian Law. . Hutton, R. (2013). U.K. Army Pushed Blair for Role in 2003 Iraq War, Study Finds. . KAMALIPOUR, Y. R. (2004). War, media, and propaganda: a global perspective. Lanham, MD [u.a.], Rowman & Littlefield. LAUGHLAND, O. (2012). Blair governments role in Iraq war undermined democracy. . LEE, P. (2012). Blairs Just War: Iraq and The Illusion Of Morality. Fifth Avenue; NY: Palgrave Macmillan. MCGOLDRICK, D. (2004). From "9-11" to the "Iraq War 2003": international law in an age of complexity. Oxford [u.a.], Hart. NIKOLAEV, A. G., & HAKANEN, E. A. (2006). Leading to the 2003 Iraq war the global media debate. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. RAI, M. (2002). War plan Iraq: ten reasons against war on Iraq. London [u.a.], Verso. SHERWELL, P. (2013). Iraq War: major new questions for Tony Blair. . SOBEL, R., FURIA, P. A., & BARRATT, B. (2012). Public opinion & international intervention: lessons from the Iraq War. Washington, D.C., Potomac Books. THE GUARDIAN. (2014). Iraq invasion was about oil. . WELLER, M. (2010). Iraq and the use of force in international law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. YIŚREĒLÎ, R. (2004). The Iraq war: hidden agendas and Babylonian intrigue : the regional impact on Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis and Arabs. Portland, Or, Sussex Academic Press. Read More