The 2003 Intervention in Iraq - Assignment Example

The 2003 Intervention in Iraq Question Why do you think the second Bush administration did not follow the path of the first Bush administration by using the United Nations and encouraging multilateralism? The second Bush administration failed to follow the path of the first Bush administration by encouraging multilateralism and using the United Nations. After the first Gulf War, the Second Bush administration thought that the combination of military containment, economic sanctions as well as the no-flight zones in both the Southern and Northern Iraq would lead to a military coup or even a palace revolution by the members of the Baath regime of Saddam (Bailis, 89). They used excessive force which lead to disagreements “yet even with the use of violence by states, there is disagreements on what constitutes the legitimate application of armed force”. This was the unilateral effort of the Washington (Bush administration) to change or topple the regime in Baghdad, and it was not the policy of the United Nations. Multilateralism requires that multiple countries work together in concert on any given issue; however Bush administration failed to obey that as they acted unilaterally. During the first Bush administration, the key strategy was to support as palace revolution or a coup and not to embark on any active American involvement to change or remove the Baath regime. However, the second Bush administration violated this strategy. He signed a presidential finding that authorized the CIA to topple Saddam. There was a huge change in the United States policy towards Iraq when he took office in January 2001. He signed a law that authorized financial assistance as well as military assistance to opposition forces of Iraq so as to remove the regime led by Saddam Hussein and hence promote the emergence of a regime that was more democratic (Bailis, 78). Further, the second Bush administration failed to encourage multilateralism by instead increased international conflict because it encourages unilateral discriminatory arrangements that enhanced the leverage of the strong and powerful over the weak. During his administration, the Congress as well as the Senate passed a law that authorized the use of armed force against Iraq, a resolution that empowered Bush to declare war without the need to obtain the authorization of the U.N. Security Council. This gave this second administration excessive powers that violated the multilateralism requirements thereby creating many disagreements. “Disagreements associated with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, led by the United States relates to interpretations of whether the conditions for just war were met before military operations began” pg. 286. Since the conditions were not met according to others, the action should be considered an act of terrorism. Question 2 After this war, do you think the United States or other major powers will likely intervene in other states unilaterally? Why or Why not? Is unilateralism a thing of the past? I don’t think the US or other major powers will likely intervene in other nations unilaterally. In addition, unilateralism is a thing of the past. America or other major powers should not act unilaterally but rather should act with others or allies particularly with the United Nations because such countries have a strong interest in advocating and upholding international law. It is often appropriate for a major power like the United States to act in coalitions so as to enhance their roles as world leaders (Bailis, 95). Acting in coalitions or multilaterally ensures that necessary precautions are taken to avoid the gassing of civilians. The use of military force without proper consultation is a crime, and therefore leaders, which order and carry out such, are criminals and hence should be brought to trial. A world leader would not want such because civilian death toll from their unilateral intervention may exceed that which that prompted the intervention in the first case. Killing more innocent civilians is not a way to pay tribute to those that are killed by their own government. Therefore, acting in coalitions would help the world leaders to respect the territorial integrity of other states. In order to give supremacy to state’s sovereign rights, unilateral intervention should not be permissible because if conditions of just war are not met, the action is considered an act of terrorism and may increase terrorism “ international terrorist incidents and related fatalities increased worldwide between 2002 and 2005. Most of the increases were associated with the war in Iraq” pg. 332. Additionally, they will not intervene unilaterally to protect and uphold their reputation and public image. Over the years, such powerful nations have intervened unilaterally on the pretense that their national interest is threatened but in the real sense, they normally intervene even if the situation does not pose an immediate threat to them. For instance, some nations have intervened due to disagreements over a free flow of a precious resource such as oil with the government of the day (Bailis, 111). This action often tarnishes the name of such major powers, it often imperil them in the future should the region or country become unstable hence leading to wider conflicts. Unilateralism is a thing of the past because nowadays major countries protect human rights when they undertake humanitarian efforts. They are required to have a vital interest in protecting and promoting democracy and human rights. They also stay out of other nations’ affairs unless they threaten their national interests and in doing so, they should act multilaterally. Question 4 Do you think powerful states like the United States should be able to remove leaders they think are unacceptable? Why or why not? Powerful states like United Kingdom and the United States should be able to remove those leaders who they think are not acceptable. Being powerful, they need to protect their status and reputation and to have an unacceptable leader may ruin such. United States has diplomatic relations with almost all countries in the world so as to be able to punish nations for actions that ranges from failure to abide by international law, human right abuses, to violations of specific treaties as well as acts of war. “For more than 60 years, leaders and citizens of countries have worked to develop the paired concepts of human rights and human security” (pg. 339). Therefore, an unacceptable leaders who violate the same freedoms they endorsed should be removed. This provides the United States and other powerful nations with a vital framework for the administration of foreign relations (Bailis, 125). An unacceptable leader is likely to ruin diplomatic relations as well as a prolonged absence of such foreign and diplomatic presence in most countries that do not like such a leader. This may handicap the ability of the United States as well as other powerful states to achieve major foreign policy in addition to national policy goals. Such nations should, therefore, have the ability to remove such leaders to avoid the closing of the embassy in order to keep diplomatic relations. In addition, an unacceptable leader is likely to damage the image and standing of powerful nations. Such states are not able to have valuable eyes and ears in a good number of countries which is vital in providing invaluable opportunities required to develop trusted relationships with such countries. Work cited Genser, Jared, and Ugarte B. Stagno. The United Nations Security Council in the Age of Human Rights. , 2014. Print. Bailis, J. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print. Read More