Was The Iraqi War-Operation Iraqi Freedom Legal or Illegal under International Law - Coursework Example

Was the Iraqi war- operation Iraqi freedom legal or illegal under international law? Introduction The Bush administration claimed that Sadaam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and he was certain of this because Sadaam had previously used those weapons against the Kurds. The neo-conservatives within the Bush administration portrayed Iraq as an extremely volatile place, and Sadaam Hussein as a dangerously unstable individual, who was capable of unleashing his weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors in the middle east, and the world at large. George Bush and his merry band of neocons attempted to bully the UN Security Council into granting the US permission to wage war in Iraq. The Security Council rebuked the request, stating that, they had not been presented with any substantiated proof that such weapons, as were being alleged by the Bush Administration, existed in Iraq. As a consequence the UN Security Council dispatched its team of weapons inspectors to search the country for the alleged weapons of mass destruction. This paper will highlight the maneuvering of the neo-conservatives in their unyielding attempt to launch an attack against Iraq; it will introduce the warnings which were issued by the various international courts of law; notifying both George Bush and Tony Blair, about the standing and possible consequences of launching a military attack on a sovereign country without provocation. Additionally, it will point out the arrogance of the neo-conservatives in imposing their perceptive will on the world order.Also, it will deal with the events and commentaries surrounding the UN Security Councils position on the issuance of a resolution for an article of war. Being president of the United States, provides the individual who occupies the office with the perogative of power. However, one must walk the fine line between legality, illegality and public opinion. Whereas an illegal act could result in impeachment, and an unpopular act, could result in a reelection defeat. These three variables narrows the prerogative, and holds the politician keen to discretion. So was the Iraq war, a war of necessity, or a war of choice? If it were a war of necessity, then it stands to reason that it was a legal war, but if it were a war of choice, does that in and of itself, make it illegal? Subsequent to an examination of the facts surrounding the situation we should have an appropriate answer. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war was explicitly stated in the National Security Council text "National Security Strategy of the United States", President Bush stated on September 20, 2002,"We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed... even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack... The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively:”( Bush 2002). No state is permitted to initiate a pre emptive attack against another state, without the UN security Council approval, unless, it has been deemed as an act of self defence.For the self defence doctrine to have been relevant in the instance for which George W. Bush addressed, then the presence and existence of WMD’s would have to be a non-disputable fact. Bush labored tediously to impress upon the American public and the world at large, that Sadaam was capable of acts, which only exists in the darkest crevices, of the most deminted of minds, so his possession of these WMD’s, placed the world at risk. The deductive reasoning, which Bush was attempting to convey, as stated by Charlesworth was , “that Iraq, a ‘rogue state’, part of the ‘axis of evil’, which held aggressive intentions towards the United States, held stocks of weapons of mass destruction, it constituted an ongoing threat to the United States” (Charlesworth 2003) Initially in the arenas of public opinion, at least among neo-conservatives, George Bush’s doctrine possessed a lot of strength. Of course 9/11 was still fresh on the minds of many, and individuals like Max Boot, gave Bush his unequivocal support, in taking the war to the terrorists. Boot felt that Bush should even be more aggressive than Bush intimated that he would be, Boot said, “we have to play the role of global policemen, we ought to go further”. (Boot 2002). Fellow neo-conservative William Kristol gave his assessment of the world order; "The world is a mess. And, I think, it's very much to Bush's credit that he's gotten serious about dealing with it... The danger is not that we're going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little.”(Kristol 2003). There is probably little objective disagreement with the fact that there are a number of issues on the world scene which are in need of sanitization, or even elimination. As a consequence one can find unremitting subjective support for actions which represent either mitigation or resolution of man’s inhumanity to man. However, one must take heed before the deed is done, to obtain the sanctions of those who have been granted the authority to objectively decide whether an act is laudable. Public support is a valuable asset at the polls, but it does not supersede the law. Darcy makes reference to The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by both the U.S. and Britain, pulls no punches on this count: "Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law" (Article 20). Despite their concerted effort, world opinion did not succumb to the illegal propaganda and public opposition to the war was vociferous.(Darcy 2003) Hans Blix, the former chief UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq, and a trained international law jurist, analyzed the pre-war situation in Iraq in this way: “Any government learning that a 9/11, perhaps with weapons of mass destruction, is about to happen cannot sit and wait, but will seek to prevent it. However, such preventive action, if undertaken without the authorization of the Security Council, would have to rely critically upon solid intelligence if it were to be internationally accepted. .”(Blix 2004) The issue which the neo-conservatives were attempting to push forward to justify an invasion of Iraq, and receive the UN Security Councils approval was the allegation that Saddam was in violation of resolution 1441, which was passed by the security council in the latter half of 2002, which demanded Iraq to surrender all weapons of mass destruction.The attempt on behalf of the neocons to curry favor, by citing the un resolution, was disputed by France and other countries, on the premise that the mere word of the Bush administration, was not sufficient evidence, to deduce that there was in fact a violation of resolution 1441. The Security Council decided to dispatch a team of inspectors, who would gather evidence, to support of disprove the neo-conservative allegation. However, in his state of the union address, George Bush was beginning to outline the perimeters for a public consensus, to justify his decision, regardless of what the UN inspectors would discover, he stated, “From the beginning, America has sought international support for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”(Bush State of the Union Address 2004) While the UN weapons inspectors were investigating in Iraq, George Bush grew impatient, and he dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell to testify before the UN Security Council. Secretary Powell produced satellite photographs, which allegedly showed images of weapons of mass destruction being hidden and transported. On the matter of the pictures, he told the council members; “While we were here in this council chamber debating Resolution 1441 last fall, we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq. ”( Powell 2003). This dialogue as put forth by the Secretary of State should have sent up all kinds of red flags. First of all, who is “we”? And if “we” knew these things to be true, then why were they not turned over to the UN inspectors, prior to their departure to Iraq. If one is not playing head games and the true objective is to prove that there were WMD’s, then providing that data to the weapons inspectors, pin pointing the locations, would have surely been a plus. This Powell show and tell was presented by the Bush administration, with evidence supplied by the CIA , which was supposed to be compelling enough to receive the security councils blessing to invade. In spite of the pin point accuracy of the photos, (See Appendix “A”) the inspectors could not find any weapons. Secretary Powell was later to resign because he realized that he had been duped, and that this fiasco could not have been perpetrated without the knowledge of the Commander-In-Chief himself.(See Appendix “B”) The framework which enables a country to apply force in International Law is contained in the United Nations Charter. The member states include the United States, The UK and also Iraq.The charter makes a special effort to emphasize that the preservation of peace is its basic aim, and it is to be preserved if possible. Article 1 of the Charter sets out the United Nations’ purposes, the first of which is: ‘To maintain international peace and security; and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.’(United Nations charter). When George W. Bush indicated that the United States would proceed with preemptive strikes against Iraq, and when he mentioned in his state of the union address that the United States would not seek a ticket to protect its citizens, he was both defying Article 2 section 4 of the UN charter, and misreading the charters approval of self defense.The Article states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”( UN Charter) As a matter of fact Article 2(4) is a peremptory norm of international law, as described by the International Court of Justice, and there is zero tolerance of any states non-compliance. Article 2, sections 2 and 3, stipulate that the use of force can only be used within the context which is expressly stated in the charter. Even then, the type of force must be within the perimeters of the UN stated purposes.The use of force is expressly stated in Chapter 7 Article 42, which states that. “If peaceful means have not succeeded in obtaining adherence to Security Council decisions, it ‘may take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security”(UN Charter) First of all, there were no threats of a breach of peace by Iraq, and the only decision which the security council made on the matter , was to dispatch UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. There was no resistance from the Iraqi government to repel the UN inspectors. As a matter of fact, in an attempt to show good faith and cooperation, an Iraqi government official met with the UN secretary General to discuss the entrance of the inspectors, and the ground rules. The Bush administration needed a Security Council resolution to exact war against Iraq, and it was not received. Moreover, they could not prove the existence of WMD, prior to March 19, 2003. As a consequence, there was no eminent danger to the US, the UK, or any neighboring state, so the invasion could not be viewed as self defence. When one views the interpretation of the UN charter narrowly, there are only two means by which one state may unilaterally exert force upon another state. “(1) In individual or collective self-defence (a right under customary international law, which is expressly preserved by Article 51 of the Charter).(2) Pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution”.(Singh, Macdonald, Chambers, Inn 2002). Secretary General Kofi Annan has said, the Iraq invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council, in accordance with the UN’s founding charter., “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view it was illegal.”(Macaskill & Borger 2004) Mr. Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.(Macaskill & Borgen 2004) Lord Goldsmith advanced the argument that resolution 1441, authorized the use of force, because it revived earlier UN resolutions. Mr Blix was obviously on the same page with Kofi Annan, and not in the same court as Mr Goldsmith,as he stated in effect, the US and UK were actually in defiance of the Security Council, and he acknowledged that while it was possible to argue the point of Iraq having breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, he stated,“the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."(Penketh & Grice 2004). Again Mr. Blix echoes the sentiments of Annan, as he said that a second resolution would have been required to authorize an attack by force. According to F. A. Boyle, “the Bush administration’s war of aggression against Iraq constituted a Crime against Peace as defined by the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) as well as by paragraph 498 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).(Boyle 2005) The comments of Boyle, strongly suggest that George W. Bush, Tony Blair and their bands of complicit players, should stand trial for the blatant and arrogant acts of manipulation, falsification, and aggression. It is clear in my minds eye that the invasion of Iraq, was not about the alleged weapons of mass destruction. Surly reasonable men can accept the assessments of other reasonable men, and consider those assessments as credible. It was clear to everyone, that when George Bush forcibly entered Iraq, he did not possess a long range plan for a protracted war. A little more than two months after the invasion, he boarded a navy vessel, from which he declared that the mission had been accomplished. This to me was an obvious sign that something else was at play. He was willing to risk his credibility and even his presidency. There are few commentators at this stage of the game, who will assert that Bush and his neo- conservatives did the right thing. The dismantling of the Sadaam regime was an act which was destined to happen. However, history will speak to the validity of whether it was worth the snubbing of every international organization, and the UN security council. Over and over again, the facts point to the same truth, the war in Iraq was illegal. Conclusion During the days of Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Madison, one would suspect that the interpretation and application of the laws were not as voluminous, and there was a heavy reliance on ones reasonable mind to guide them through conflict. This reasonableness would have been guided by veracity, and their abiding respect for the laws as they existed and those who had been chosen to administer them. They would never have leveled a threat of extinction, if decisions were not rendered in their favor.Bush and his neo-conservatives espouse the spreading of democracy across the globe. They have forgotten that the democracy of Jefferson and Madison, is not arrogant, but gracious. It is not enabled by greed, but by sharing. It is not enhanced by subterfuge, but by transparency.It is not dishonest, but trusting.For sure, Jefferson and Madison would have scouffed at the neo-conservative handling of the Iraq debacle. It seems that we have produced too many lawyers, many of whom who refuse to employ a strict constructionist interpretation of the UN charter and its subsequent resolutions. Nor do these lawyers have any regard for International law. There are few, if any international law jurists, who disagree on the illegality of the Iraq war. This Bush atrocity is his legacy, and it will be discussed ad infinitum as the model not to follow. It is a travesty when learned men turn up their noses at the law, and try to convince everyone else, that they know what is best for everyone, regardless of what the right thing to do is. Bibliography Darcy, S. (2003), Through a legal lens – The attack and occupation of Iraq, Electronic Iraq, December 15, 2003, Retrieved on line on September 12, 2008 from http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/1215legal.htm Blix, H.,(2004) “The Importance of Inspections”, Proliferation Brief (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) Vol. 7, No. 11, 2004, Retrieved on line on September 13, 2008 from, www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/03/00_krieger_war-illegal-illegitimate.htm Bush, G., (2004) State of the Union Address, United States Capital, Washington, D. C., January, 2004, Retrieved on line on September 12, 2009, from www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html Charlesworth, H. (2003), Is International law relevant to the war in Iraq and its aftermath? What’s law got to do with the war in Iraq? National Press club, Canberra 29 October 2003 Powell, C.,(2003) Address to the UN Security Council, February 5, 2003, Retrieved on line on September 12, 2008, from www.earthobservationsummit.gov United Nations Charter Article 1, Retrieve on line on September 13, 2008, ,from http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad026.htm United Nations Charter Article 2 section 4, Retrieved on line on September 13, 2008, from, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad026.htm United Nations Charter chapter 7 Article 42, Retrieved on line on September 13, 2008, from http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad026.htm Singh R., Macdonald A., Chambers M., and Inn, G (2002), Legality of use of force against Iraq, Opinion, London 10 September 2002 www.inlap.freeuk.com/caw_final_a5.pdf Macaskill, E., & Borger J., (2004), Iraq war was illegal an breached UN charter, Says Annan, Guardian, September 16, 2004, Retrieved on line of September 12, 2008, from nucnews.net/nucnews/2004nn/0409nn/040916nn.htm Penketh, A., & Grice, A. (2004) Blix: Iraq war was illegal, Independent March 5, 2004 Retrieved on line on September 12, 2008, from globalpolicy.org/security/.../iraq/justify/2004/0305blixillegalwar.htm Boyle, F. A. (2005), Iraq and the laws of war: US as a belligerent occupant, Counterpunch, December 22, 2005, Retrieved on line on September 12, 2008, from. www.counterpunch.org/boyle12222005.html Appendix “A” Claims about Iraqi WMD                                            vs. Actual Facts      Precursor Chemicals: 3,307 tons Found: None      Tabun, nerve agent Found: None      Mustard agent Found: None      Sarin, nerve agent Found: None      VX nerve agent, 1.6 tons Found: None      Anthrax spores raw material: 25,550 liters Found: None      Botulinnum toxin Found: One vial of Sarin B, 10 years old, in an Iraqi scientist's domestic refrigerator      Alfotoxins Found: None      Ricin Found: None      Mobile bio-weapons laboratories: possibly 18 Found: Two suspected mobile labs found to be harmless, possibly purchased from the UK in 1987 as atmospheric hydrogen balloon labs for artillery aiming purposes      Bombs, rockets, and shells for poison, gas: up to 30,000 shells Found: None      L-29 unmanned aerial vehicles for delivering biological and chemical weapons Found: None      Nuclear weapons material Found: None (corroded parts from a single 12-year old centrifuge buried under a rose bush in the back yard of a former Iraqi scientist)      Al Hussein surface-to-surface missile with 410 mile/650 kilometer range, up to 20 Found: None With their mission accomplished, Donald Rumsfeld disbanded the OSP in September 2003. Despite the so-called Congressional investigation into "intelligence failures" regarding Iraq, there is "strong resistance" by the Republicans to investigate the OSP and related activities. It is highly doubtful Congress will expose the truth in the near future, as it would make Richard Nixon's "dirty tricks" and the Watergate scandal simply pale in comparison. Indeed, if Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or George Washington were alive today, they would probably demand these nineteen men be immediately charged with high crimes and treason. Source: Dreyfuss R. and Vest J.(2004) The lie factory, Mother Jones February 2004 Appendix “B” Source: Dreyfuss R. and Vest J.(2004) The loe factory, Mother Jones February 2004 Read More