International Crisis: United Nations - Case Study Example

Comparison on the role of United Nations, United s and other Nations in 1991 and 2003 Invasion of Iraq Introduction The United s launched the Iraqi war in 1991 and again in 2003 with specific strikes in 2003 targeting location of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his top army officials. Despite the resistance encountered by U.S troops on entering Iraq, they were capable of applying force hence capturing major Iraqi population centers and putting them under their control by April 2003 (Jakobsen 1). United Nations Security Council on the other hand adopted Resolution 1441 in 2002 that granted Iraq final chance to accept and implement disarmament obligations of which Iraq never complied. The UN Administration asserted that Iraq defied 17 Security Council resolutions that provides for full elimination of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, the opponents of the process argued that UN inspection process would have been granted more time. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress authorized the President to utilize the armed forces of the United States for the purposes of defending U.S national security against Iraq threat. The congress also authorized US government to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions on the Iraq issue (Copson 15). Role of the United States in Iraqi war The United States wanted Saddam Hussein ousted from power and the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that was passed by the House of Representatives and Senate (Jakobsen 1) supported this. The U.S. President Bill Clinton then signed the act into law. In all these, the real goal of U.S. was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and the issue received support from adopted UN Resolution 1441. The United States further implemented economic sanctions with British military enforcing no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq. Despite other countries playing their roles, the principal actor in this war was United States (Copson 15). In 2003, which is after the September 11 attack, the then president of US focused on security and well-being of the Americans. This is since Iraq was believed to possess Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), the only way out was to oust Saddam Hussein from power through military action. The differences comes in whereby in 1991, the war was against Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait while in 2003, the war was against Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). However, America’s action was made difficult since Saddam had dictatorial dominance over Iraq hence had larger influence on Iraqi decision- making body as compared to Bush. George Bush had limited influence on policy-making in Washington since he had to be given leeway by Congress (Jakobsen 1). The tendency was to consider Iraqi frameworks as resistant to change and tracking the dynamics of an emerging culture going against such tendency. However, traumatic events on Saddam’s dictatorial regime and use of WMD must have triggered important shifts. Otherwise, the changes would be mere fixing towards international influences (Longhurst, 2004: 18). Even then, the various adjustments proved not sufficient to explain the emerging process owing to the methodology applied in both contexts of military action. Role of United Nations The UN Security Council acted against Iraq in the face of repeated violations from Iraq government. The council responded by making unanimous resolution in November 2002 through adoption of Resolution 1441. The resolution outlined purposes of UN Security Council and occasions when it authorizes use of military action. However, on the contrary, the same body has primary responsibility of maintaining peace and security. In 1990, the 15-member Security Council adopted major international response towards Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The council in its power, authorized the use of force to counter Iraq’s attack on Kuwait and demands its withdrawal from Kuwait. This was done in compliance with the 11 resolutions that were passed by the council in 1990 (Browne 2). The Iraq invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 provoked a series of actions by U.N. member states through UN Security Council. This led the Security Council to adopt 12 resolutions with elements of Chapter VII of the charter that was created in 1945 (Browne 3). The charter’s main responses related to maintenance of international peace as well as enforcing use of force or its equivalent. Chapter VII outlines necessary steps required in response to “threats to the peace including acts of aggression”. The Security Council condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait under Resolution 660 (1990), hence settling on resolution 661 (1990) that authorized economic sanctions against any aggressors in this case Iraq. Additionally, the council enacted Resolution 665(1990), which authorized states with maritime forces within surrounding conflict zones to implement measures as may be necessary in ensuring sanctions as related to shipping (Browne 3). The UN Security council imposed various obligations and duties as mandated by Resolutions 667 and 668 leading to infringement of on Iraq’s internal affairs. The government of Iraq was forced to accept international assistance in humanitarian areas towards its population that were subject to their harsh regime. Within a period of ten years between 1992 and 2002 UN Security Council adopted series of 39 resolutions targeting Iraq. Some of the resolutions included boundary demarcation between Iraq and Kuwait and operations from United Nations Observation Mission (UNIKOM). The relationship between UN Security Council and US is characterized by major constraints especially in decision making as revealed from the two Iraqi invasions. However, in the European system Lisbon Treaty led to the abolishment of what was referred to as European Union three-pillar framework, leading to the current management system known as second pillar framework. This treaty was meant for solving civil-military international crisis management correlated to Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The treaty led to the creation of developmental frames and structures meant for crisis management (Grevi 60). Role of other Nations One may ask the question on how the European strategic culture affected the framework of the North Atlantic and UN security community, taking into account that a shared security culture appears as a permissive element for security communities. In 2003, a security culture like this represented a system of socially constructed sense concerning international threats, implying their common identification description and a common mindset concerning various means of responses. In comparison to 1991 invasion in 2003 the idea of a challenge from the other nations from North Atlantic region, the European strategic culture as given in the history seemed suggestive. This is because; both though less stable, are more inclusive than usual descriptions of national strategic cultures would have it. Their concern centers around collective actors, provision of a general consensual view on the international environment, and even beyond considering the military domain. Members or participants proved this as the essential way of dealing with the security issues of concern with incomprehensive coverage of all security concerns. However, the challenge that European culture references regarding security threat to North Atlantic evolutions should not be overrated. The EU’s outlook on the war on terror which was the position taken by the Bush administration after 9/11was more comprehensive and less aggressive as compared to their actions in 1991. However, the EU’s position on preventive action in dealing with threats points to a framework of pre-emption quite similar to the US (Goede 161). The appearance of challenging and conforming elements in the European strategic culture’s articulation with North Atlantic references comes as no surprise. The new focus brought by the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) into NATO-EU relationship presented a different perspective from the previous one which made this relationship be identified by inter-organizational competitions with shallow insights on their operations. However, the inclusion of CSDP has ensured the institution’s success despite many identified inefficiencies (Hofmann 47). Conclusion From the comparison, the European approach believes that an all-out opposition does not bring the shift in the security community because of the EU’s growing assertiveness. Rather, it reflects that practices in this domain have led to the disruption of several representations that represented a settled situation. The United States approach as indicated in 2003 Iraqi war still points towards military actions. The idea of a clear-cut division of labor between United Nations and the institutions emerging through the process of integration is one such representation. By unsettling the centrality of UN for political-diplomatic interaction between member states and the American participants, CSDP’s emergence has triggered shifts in the practice of the North Atlantic security. As a result, while not challenging the community itself, the shift in UN practice accompanying the development of Security organs has led to important changes. Works Cited Berenskoetter, Felix Sebastian. Mapping the mind gap: a comparison of US And European Security Strategies. Security Dialogue, 36(2005): 71-92. Browne, Marjorie. The United Nations Security Council- Its Role in the Iraq Crisis. CRS Report for Congress, RS21323 (2003): 2-6 Copson, Raymond. Iraq War: Background and Issues Overview. CRS Report for Congress RL31715, (2003): 1-55 Goede, Marieke de. The politics of pre-emption and the war on terror in Europe. European Journal of International Relations 14(2008), 161-185. Grevi, Giovanni. ESDP institutions”, in Giovanni Grevi, Daniel Keohane and Damien Helly (eds.), European Security and Defence Policy: the first ten years (1999-2009), Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies, 2009, pp 19-67. Hofmann, Stephanie. Overlapping institutions in the realm of international Security: the case of NATO and ESDP. Perspectives on Politics 7(2009): 45-52 Jakobsen, Tor Georg & Jo Jakobsen. The Game: A Rational Actor Approach to the US-led Invasion of Iraq, 2003” Strategic Analysis, 33(2009) 664–674. Longhurst, Kerry. Germany and the use of force: the evolution of German Security policy 1989-2003, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004 Read More