US and UK abandon international law

The Insider, 17 March 2003

Why are the US and the UK governments going to war with Iraq when the weapons inspections process is not yet complete?

The weapons inspections process was started by Resolution 1441, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council including the US and the UK. This resolution, which created the international team of UN weapons experts in Iraq, was written by the US and the UK.[1] The latest official report from the weapons inspectors observed substantial disarmament by Iraq and concluded that the process could be completed within a matter of months.[2]

The US and the UK are now unwilling to honour their commitment to Resolution 1441, so disarmament is obviously not their true motive for attacking Iraq.

...President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made clear that it was too late for Iraq to disarm, too late for further weapons inspections and too late for more diplomacy...[3]

The US government is the threat of military action to prevent the UN weapons inspectors from continuing with their mission. Today, the White House formally warned the UN weapons inspectors to leave Iraq immediately.[4] The UK government has ordered all British citizens to leave the region, which demonstrates that the decision to invade Iraq has already been taken.[5]

The US and the UK wrote a new resolution to legalise military action against Iraq[6,7], but failed to obtain international support despite the unrivalled diplomatic power of the US government[8-10] combined with the diplomatic force of the UK Prime Minister.[11] Other than the three nations which sponsored the new resolution, not one member of the 15-nation Security Council would vote to approve a resolution authorising war.[12-14] France and Germany in particular, for standing up to the most powerful nation in history, have been targeted for abuse from angry American politicians and journalists.[15]

The so-called new resolution was nothing but a deceptive show. The US and the UK knew they would never succeed even if they could win the 9 votes required to pass a resolution, because the other three permanent members of the Security Council, France, Russia, and China would each definitely have used their veto to prevent the war[16-19].

. . .the three leaders appeared today to be merely going through the motions of diplomacy in an effort to place the blame on the United Nations if the council fails to authorize the use of force.[20]

The war against Iraq which will begin this week is certainly illegal under international law. As the BBC reports: Under the UN charter, military force is legally permitted only if it is sanctioned by the Security Council or in self-defence.[21] Legal experts working for the US and UK governments are trying to re-interpret existing international agreements to convince the public that the UN has already authorised military action.

They made it clear that they were ready to start a war to depose Saddam Hussein, with or without the endorsement of the United Nations.[22]

By stopping the weapons inspections in Iraq before the process has finished, the US and UK have deliberately broken their agreement to disarm Iraq under Resolution 1441.

SOURCES

[1] UN, Resolution 1441, 8 November 2003. [ http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm ]

[2] UNMOVIC, 12th quarterly report to the UN Security Council, 7 March 2003. [ http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm ]

[3] Washington Post, U.S. Officials Make It Clear: Exile or War, 17 March 2003. [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35410-2003Mar16.html ]

[4] BBC News, Inspectors urged to leave Iraq, 17 March 2003, [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2856647.stm ]

[5] BBC News, Britons ’must leave Kuwait’, 17 march 2003. [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2855987.stm ]

[6] New York Times, U.S. Still Hopeful of 9 Votes at U.N. for Iraq Measure, 13 March 2003. [ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/international/middleeast/13IRAQ.html ]

[7] BBC News, Powell takes Iraq case to UN, 5 February 2003. [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2727489.stm ]

[8] BBC News, Powell upbeat on UN backing over Iraq, 9 March 2003. [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2833821.stm ] [9] The Observer, America the arm twister, 2 March 2003. [ http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905755,00.html ]

[10] The Independent, Small fry at UN feel the heat from US, 2 March 2003. [ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=382998 ]

[11] BBC News, Blair working ’flat out’ for UN resolution, 10 March 2003. [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2837981.stm ]

[12] New York Times, Security Council’s Ambassadors Scramble to Find a Compromise, 13 March 2003. [ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/international/middleeast/13DIPL.html ]

[13] BBC News, Iraq war ’closer,’ UK warns, 13 March 2003. [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2846039.stm ]

[14] New York Times, U.S. May Abandon U.N. Vote on Iraq, Powell Testifies, 14 March 2003. [ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/international/middleeast/14IRAQ.html ]

[15] BBC News, US castigates France over Iraq, 13 March 2003. [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2845665.stm ]

[16] BBC News, Moscow and Paris show their hand, 11 March 2003. [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2841757.stm ]

[17] BBC News, Bush and Blair face diplomatic disaster, 11 March 2003. [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2834723.stm ]

[18] BBC News, Veto powers reject US ultimatum, 17 March 2003. [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2856229.stm ]

[19] BBC News, China rallies behind war opponents, 6 March 2003. [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2825519.stm ]

[20] Washington Post, Bush, Allies Give Diplomacy 24 More Hours, 17 March 2003. [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32413-2003Mar16.html ]

[21] BBC News, Legal experts scour old resolutions, 16 March 2003. [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2847929.stm ]

[22] New York Times, Leaders Declare That Diplomatic Effort at U.N. Ends Today, 17 March 2003. [ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/17/international/middleeast/17DIPL.html ]

FURTHER READING:

The Debate—War on Iraq [ http://www.thedebate.org ]