British Democracy and Iraq War - Essay Example

Running head: British democracy and Iraq war Introduction The Iraq war was initiated by the United s ofAmerica on the grounds that Iraq was being ruled by a very oppressive regime and that its people needed to be liberated from it. They were later joined by other countries such as Britain, the American's invaded Iraq since their foreign policies allowed them to do so although they were not in agreement with the resolutions of the United Nations which is mandated to intervene on international matters. Tony Blair and his team followed the US blindly since for them they were not guided by any international policies in their countries. They based their argument on the grounds that the regime of Saddam Hussein was posing threat to the security of the whole world. They also argued that there was need to liberate the Iraq people from the oppressive regime which was not democratic and was abusing the human rights of its citizens (Armstrong, Farrell, & Maiguashca, 2005). British democracy and Iraq war Democratic norms are in most cases not perceived to be relevant to the foreign and international policies of a country. However, in the consideration of the democracy framework of various governments a number of critical questions arise. The first one is about respect of the international law by a country, basing on the fact that such a government cannot easily acquire the democratic tribute in regard to the rule of law locally if it is capable of violating the rule of law in a foreign country. The international law is much vaguer compared to the domestic one, but majority of the international lawyers are in agreement that Iraq's invasion by both the United States of America and Britain was a blatant breach on the charter of the United Nations. The charter is very clear and stipulates that armed forces can only be used in a case of self defense or when the United Nations Security Council explicitly authorizes use of such force (Vickers, 2004). Tony Blair in attacking Iraq had complete disregard of the United Nation's charter in fact, his speech in 1999 while in South Africa is a clear testimony. In this speech he argued that although the international community has agreed on some objectives they have failed to implement them and hence country's like Britain and the United States of America, have to bear some burden like invading Iraq since they have a sense of world responsibility. In this case he was actually implying that his government had the right to invade a sovereign government like that of Iraq and thus participate in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations. The British government was in this case very biased as it even chose the resolutions to enforce and which ones to leave out, which by any standards cannot be viewed as respecting international rule of law (Allawi, 2007). The British government argued that it was not important to wait the United Nations to pass resolutions that would explicitly authorize the use of force in Iraq as this could mean taking a back seat and watch as a humanitarian crisis takes center stage in Iraq as it happened in Kosovo. By basing their argument on the Kosovo humanitarian catastrophe the British government justified the removal by force of the Iraq's undemocratic regime, arguing that the Iraq government was actually violating human rights of its citizens (Beck, Grande, & Cronin, 2007). The second question evolves around Britain's consistency on its quest to support human rights and democracy in foreign countries. When the human rights and democracy are used as base of justifying morality of a government's policies then consistency is considered to be a vital factor. Such arguments when applied selectively loose meaning and the weight they ought to carry. Although, largely believed that the more powerful and democratic countries can support human rights and democracy on foreign countries, they cannot achieve their objectives by use of force, since that would in fact, mean violation of the same human rights that the British government was intending to protect (Hallenberg, & Karlsson, 2005). The British government together with its supporters justified the costs incurred in the Iraq war, by the liberation of the Iraqi citizens from an oppressive regime of Sadam Hussein. But how could that be possible by the British government without involving the Iraqi people and claim the objective of the war is to benefit them. The Iraqi people ought to be included in their own liberation which was clearly not the case thus the British government claim that its intention in the war was to liberate them (Allawi, 2007). Tony Blair and his government could not claim to be moral in the Iraq war where his government actively played a major role in the war that at the end of the day saw thousands of Iraq children die along side with thousands of other civilians. They died mainly as a result of the economic sanctions that were imposed by the British government which led to the lack of medical supplies. This made thousands of children and civilians fail to obtain good medical care as the medical supplies that were not available locally as the sanctions prevented the entry of such into the country. In this case the British government used its power and political influence to make thousands of Iraqi people suffer all in the name of safeguarding democracy and human rights (Hallenberg, & Karlsson, 2005). In the quest to push democracy down the throats of the people of Iraq the British government came up with an unfounded argument that Saddam's regime was threatening the peace of the whole world, this argument justified their course to invade Iraq on the ground that it was possessing weapons which were capable of causing mass destruction, but the invasion did not yield any fruits since no weapons of that nature were found in Iraq. Although, the British government did not respect the United Nations charter while invading Iraq, it argued that it had the right of invading Iraq since Saddam's regime was undermining the United Nations together with its principles. This is a clear case of big brother whereby since Britain was more powerful in terms of military than Iraq it could therefore apply the United Nations' resolutions selectively to their advantage (Allawi, 2007). The third and final question is about the examination of the degree to which a government is free from external powers subordination. The reasoning is that democracy of a government is threatened when decisions which will ultimately affect its well being and that of its citizens are determined by external powers through subordination. Although, a special relationship exists between the British government and the government of the United States of America, it is possibly a situation of equals; it conceals the reliance of the Britain on the military intelligence and technology of United States of America so as to be able to sustain its nuclear status. The British government followed that of the US in the Iraq war, this led to a considerable self hallucination about its influence on the foreign policy of United States. These aspects put the government of Tony Blair into sharp focus, because ever since President Bush took office in US the policies of Britain shifted and they were no longer focused on the national security or interests of the country but they were more based on imperial ambition and paranoia (Armstrong, Farrell, & Maiguashca, 2005). The government of Britain has very selective disregard as far as rule of law internationally is concerned, it is also self defeating and quite inconsistent in its quest to support human rights and democracy in foreign countries. It is subordinate to US agenda on such matters and also to its pay masters economically. These were seen as the permanent features during the tenure of Tony Blair. His decision to invade Iraq was just an extension of his misconception of the international policy as his government believed that the policy adopted by the United States must probably be the best (Hallenberg, & Karlsson, 2005). The invasion of Iraq clearly indicated that the British government was not accountable to its electorate. This invasion was not aimed at benefiting the Britons in any way, they were also not required in the decision making process of invading Iraq yet it was their government and money they had paid in form of taxes that was to be spent in the war. In fact, the prime minister was forced to first have a vote parliament before committing troops to the battle, instead of relying on his constitutional powers. He did this because there was growing protest both from within his party and from the entire country (Hedges, 2006) The decision for the British government to participate in Iraq evasion degraded its democracy substantially, the government demonstrated bad faith and it kept shifting goal posts in its attempt to justify the Iraq war at times it could even consider the resolutions of the United Nations, but it continuously applied them selectively. The government also manipulated a public opinion by fabricating and doctoring information of high intelligence concerning the weapons that were believed to be in Iraq which it argued that they were capable of causing mass destruction. This misguided the citizens making them to believe that there were more than enough reasons for invading the regime of Saddam Hussein (Armstrong, Farrell, & Maiguashca, 2005). The issue concerning foreign policy has never been of much value in Britain's democracy and public debates of high caliber. Thus the invasion of Iraq raised several questions that were never fully answered. Therefore, by taking part in the Iraq war eroded completely the democratic customs, values and traditions of the Britons. In fact, some people argued that Britain's invasion to Iraq was a deviation from the normal approach of international matters (Hedges, 2006). Conclusion Participation of British government in the Iraq war can never be justified; it used force to push for its own agenda which was not in the interest of the Iraqi people. As a result of the invasion thousands of school children died due to lack of proper medical care, this was because there was an acute shortage of medical supplies following the sanctions it had imposed on the Iraqi government. The invasion was a clear testimony Britain was not ready to obey the United Nations resolutions thus showing that it did not have any respect to the principles of the United Nations. Thus the Iraq war had very damaging effects on the democracy of Britain. Reference: Armstrong, J.D., Farrell, T. & Maiguashca, B. (2005): Force and legitimacy in world politics, ISBN 0521691648, Cambridge University Press. Allawi, A. A. (2007): The occupation of Iraq: winning the war, losing the peace, ISBN 0300110154, Yale University Press. Beck, U. Grande, E. & Cronin, C. (2007): Cosmopolitan Europe ISBN 0745635628, Polity. Hallenberg, J. & Karlsson, H. (2005): The Iraq War: European perspectives on politics, strategy and operations, ISBN 0415362938, Routledge Hedges, C. (2006): Iraq: A War, ISBN 1566566487, Interlink Publishing Group. Vickers, R. (2004): Blair's war ISBN 0745633595, Wiley-Blackwell. Read More