|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 
Even with a Clear UN Security Council Resolution, War on Iraq
is Wrong
|
 |
 |
 |
The US is threatening war against Iraq, with or without UN authorization. Meanwhile, Canadians are busy debating the legitimacy of military intervention without the sanction of the international community. Popular wisdom, as well as the official party line, suggests that we should wait for the word from the weapons inspectors and respect UN procedure. Largely unquestioned in our national media is the assumption that a negative report from the weapons inspectors would legitimize war. By focussing our attention on the authority debate, the media has distracted public attention from four important considerations: the original intention of resolution 1441, the vulnerability of the Security Council to US manipulation, the peace mandate of the United Nations, and the humanitarian and environmental costs of military intervention. Canada must not abdicate its own responsibility to critically evaluate the arguments for war. |
||
 |
 |
 |
Contents
- The Humanitarian and Environmental Costs of War
- The Security Council: An Instrument in Need of Reform
- Permanent Five Influence on Council Votes
- US Unilateralism and Permanent Five Votes
- A War on Iraq Would Contravene International Law and the Role of the UN
- A Renewed War on the People of Iraq Cannot be Justified
On November 8, 2002, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, demanding that Iraq
submit a full declaration of activities and materials related to weapons of mass destruction. The resolution sent weapons inspectors into Iraq, and also laid out provisions for the handling of Iraqi non-compliance. Under these provisions, non-compliance could precipitate a call for military action. Nevertheless, the resolution itself would not authorize the use of force. In order to go to war against Iraq, the Security Council would have to pass a second resolution specifically endorsing military intervention.
Even with such an endorsement, however, Canadian churches believe that a war on the people of Iraq cannot be justified.
 | The Humanitarian and Environmental Costs of War | |
 |  |
The humanitarian and environmental costs of the 1991 Gulf War have been well documented. An estimated 200,000 died in the war itself or as a consequence of the destruction of infrastructure needed for housing, health care, electricity, food production and distribution, sanitation and water treatment. Post-war conflict within Iraq and violent repression of internal revolts by the Iraqi regime caused a further 30,000 deaths, as well as the displacement of more than a million people. In addition, Iraqi and international health agencies have documented an alarming increase in cancer and leukaemia, auto-immune diseases, birth defects, and other health problems in Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War. Many believe that the current health crisis is linked to the use of depleted uranium weapons by the US-led coalition.
The war itself and Iraq's subsequent sabotage of Kuwaiti oil infrastructure have also had enormous impact on air quality, the marine systems of the Persian Gulf, and the delicate desert ecosystem. At least 80 ships were sunk, and over 5 million gallons of oil were either burned or released into the Gulf every day for several months thereafter. As late as 1999, 400-500 tonnes of fish died in the Persian Gulf. Suggested causes include a lack of oxygen in the water due to oil pollution, and the failure of phytoplankton to proliferate. The depleted uranium scattered throughout the region is another major environmental hazard. Its long-term consequences for soil, ground water, air quality, flora and fauna, and human health will take generations to fully understand.
A renewed war on the people of Iraq could have even more severe consequences than the 1991 war. At the outset of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq's infrastructure was largely intact. Now, the country's water, sewage and electricity systems stand at the brink of collapse. An attack on Iraq now would almost certainly push this infrastructure over the brink, severing power to hospitals and water treatment plants, cutting off drinking water to millions in Baghdad and possibly elsewhere, and seriously disrupting the food supply to Iraqi civilians. The UN estimates that 16 million Iraqis – a full 60% of the population – are almost completely dependent on food aid for survival. Disruption of the aid distribution system could have drastic consequences. Moreover, war will likely be drawn into the densely populated streets of Baghdad, where the potential impact on civilians and infrastructure would be enormous.
According to a confidential UN document entitled "Likely Humanitarian Scenarios," the World Health Organization estimates that "as many as 500,000 people could require treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries". The World Food Programme, for its part, has started to put in place the food required to feed 900,000 people. Similarly, the UN High Commission on Refugees anticipates the eventual displacement of up 900,000 Iraqis, of whom 100,000 will need immediate assistance. An estimated 2 million people will require some assistance with shelter.
More difficult to forecast is the extent of civil unrest likely to follow a renewed attack on Iraq, as well as the risk of combat spilling over into other countries in the region. Nor can we overlook the very real possibility that weapons of mass destruction could be used in a renewed war on Iraq – by either side.
A resolution by the Security Council endorsing an attack on Iraq will not lessen or justify the human and environmental devastation that would result. Furthermore, it is an imperfect reflection of the will of the international community.
Top
of page
|
The Security Council: An Instrument in Need of Reform |
|
 |
|
The UN Security Council needs reform to make it a more genuine expression of the will of member nations. Of the 184 members of the UN General Assembly, only 15 sit on the Security Council at any given time. Ten of the 15 Council members are elected for two year terms, representing each of the world’s major regions. Five members – France, China, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States – have permanent seats on the Council and the power to veto any substantive issue before the Council. As a result, the five permanent members dominate the Council. Despite calls for reform, no mechanism has yet been established for a democratic review or for redistribution of permanent status and the veto.
Veto power means that permanent members can block actions that are supported by the majority of Council members and even by the majority of the members of the General Assembly. Usually, the mere threat of using veto power is enough to force changes on a draft resolution before it is tabled before the Council for discussion and vote. This arrangement has contributed to the acceleration of debate around military intervention against Iraq. By invoking the 'closet veto' during the drafting of Resolution 1154 (March 2, 1998), the US forced other Council members to accept the addition of a phrase warning of "severest consequences" for Iraqi non-compliance with continued weapons inspections,. A few months later, the US and UK invoked this phrase to justify the four-day US/UK bombing campaign known as Operation Desert Fox.
Reform advocates point also to inconsistencies in the enforcement of Council resolutions. Such inconsistencies reveal the way in which the foreign interests of the Permanent Five, and especially the United States, dictate Security Council actions. One often-cited example is the systematic US veto in response to repeated calls for the enforcement of international law and UN Security Council resolutions in the case of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Another is the Security Council authorization of a peace-keeping mission to Haiti but not to Rwanda. More recently, the domination of the Security Council by the Permanent Five was revealed in the handling of the 12,000-page Iraqi weapons declaration, submitted to the Security Council on December 8, 2002. Without any authority to do so, the US took control of the declaration and, while sharing uncensored copies with the other permanent members, removed some 8,000 pages of text before sharing it with the 10 non-permanent Council members.
All Council members do not participate equally in current decision-making.
Reform is crucial to ensuring that decisions reflect the will and
interests of the majority of UN members.
| Permanent Five Influence on Council Votes | |
| |
Not only do the Permanent Five have the ability to block Council action, even against the majority will, but they also have and regularly exercise considerable influence over the vote of other Council members.
Leading up to the 1991 Gulf War, for example, the US bribed, threatened or punished almost every Security Council member in order to gain support for a US-led war on Iraq. Poor countries were induced with Saudi oil. Countries like Ethiopia and Colombia whose aid had previously been cut were offered new arms packages. China received a US $114 million aid package, ostensibly for post-Tianamen Square diplomatic rehabilitation and development assistance.
When Yemeni Ambassador al-Ashtal voted against the November 29, 1990 Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use "all necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions, America Ambassador Pickering appeared at his side within seconds and whispered to him, close enough to an open microphone for everyone to hear: "That's the most expensive vote you ever cast." The following day, the US suspended more than US $100 million in aid. Yemen is the poorest country in the Arab world.
Ambassador Jagdish Koonjul of Mauritius was recalled by his government for expressing reservations about the draft resolution that later became resolution 1441. Mauritius receives a significant amount of US aid, and the US African Growth and Opportunity Act clearly states that the aid recipient must not "engage in activities contrary to US national security or foreign policy interests."
Of the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council at the time the US presented draft resolution 1441, only Syria, Norway and Singapore were not beneficiaries of US foreign aid. Singapore, nonetheless, was involved in a US $370 million arms deal with the US. Of the current non-permanent members, only Germany and Spain are not tied to the US by direct aid or by powerful trade agreements.
In this context, the legitimacy of the votes of non-permanent members on a US-sponsored resolution calling for war on Iraq is highly questionable.
|
US Unilateralism and Permanent Five Votes |
|
|
|
The failure of France, China and the Russian Federation to veto a US/UK resolution calling for war on Iraq can be explained by interests other than principles of international peace and security.
Openly opposing a US call for war on Iraq could cause a diplomatic rift with the United States that few countries are willing to risk. In the fall of 2002, German-US relations reached their lowest ebb since World War II when Gerhard Schröder made comments opposing war on Iraq.
Conversely, supporting a US resolution by not using the veto can win permanent members diplomatic favour with the US. Russia, for instance, has a vested interest in currying US support for pre-emptive strikes on neighbouring Georgia in the event that Russian leaders deem such action necessary for stopping terrorists based there. Similarly, China stands to gain from US support in their struggles to control a troublesome Islamic minority in Xingjian province.
Over and above the diplomatic benefits of withholding the veto on a US-sponsored call for war, there are economic inducements. Both China and Russia, for instance, benefit economically from US business. Additionally, France, China, and Russia all stand to lose access to valuable reconstruction contracts and the second largest reserve of oil in the world if they use their veto. France, through oil giant TotalFinaElf, has designs on multi-billion dollar interests in the Majnoon oilfield that will not come to fruition if the US occupies Iraq without France's assistance. Russia's Lukoil has a 23-year, $3.5 billion contract to develop the huge West Quormah oilfield. China's National Petroleum Corporation has a contract to exploit the North Rumailah reservoir.
According to a September 15, 2002 Washington Post report, the promise of access to Iraq's oil was a bargaining chip the US used in its negotiations with Security Council members leading up to the vote on Resolution 1441.
If the US and the UK were to attack Iraq after a Security Council veto of military intervention, the integrity of the Council’s authority could also be weakened, along with a great deal of its already-waning credibility. By attacking Iraq despite a Security Council veto, the US and UK would send the message that Council decisions are binding on some member countries but not on others. This would down-grade the Council's role to one that is effective only when the US and UK give it authority.
The US has made it clear to the international community that it intends to go to war with Iraq – with or without explicit Security Council endorsement – if Iraq is found in material breach of resolution 1441:
I can assure you if [Saddam Hussein] doesn't comply this time, we are going to ask the U.N. to give authorization for all necessary means. If the UN isn't willing to do that, the United States, with like-minded nations, will go and disarm him forcefully.
– US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a CNN Late Edition interview, November 10, 2002
As early as November 18, 2002, the US declared Iraq in breach of resolution 1441 when Iraqi air defences shot at US and UK aircraft in the illegal "no-fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq. The US has also claimed to have found omissions in the Iraqi weapons declaration. By January 6, 2002, the Pentagon reported the build up of 60,000 US troops in the Gulf region, with the same number scheduled to arrive in the subsequent two weeks.
A US-led war on Iraq, even without Security Council authorization,
is an undeniable possibility. In considering a US/UK-sponsored call
for military intervention in Iraq, the permanent members of the
Security Council will be balancing principles of international peace
and security against their economic interests in Iraq, their diplomatic
and trade relations with the US, and international support for their
own domestic security measures. Ongoing informal consultations among
the Permanent Five will no doubt have considerable influence on
how each assesses this balance.
|
A War on Iraq Would Contravene International Law and the Role of the UN |
|
|
|
A Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention in Iraq would contravene both the spirit and the letter of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as the Geneva Convention.
The Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations makes clear the role of the UN in international peace and security. The United Nations, the Charter says, was created "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," and to ensure that "armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest." Even then, according to Chapter VI, Article 33, Paragraph 1, of the Charter, the use of military force is prohibited "unless all possible non-military options have been exhausted." A conceivable approach to long-term peace-building in Iraq is one that:
- takes place in the context of regional disarmament, as called for earlier by Security Council resolutions (see, for example, Resolution 687)
- establishes re-invigorated diplomatic relations with Iraq, as well as containment through weapons inspections and monitoring,
- institutes an international campaign of legal action against Saddam Hussein for his crimes
- ends the sanctions that keep the citizens of Iraq in poverty
- supports the development of Iraqi civil society.
Such an approach has not yet been tried. Non-military options then, have not yet been exhausted.
The UN Charter is not the only international framework relevant to the prospect of war on the people of Iraq. Article 54 of Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts expressly prohibits attacks upon "objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," and asserts that "in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement." A renewed war, as has already been argued, is certain to have catastrophic consequences for civilian infrastructure and the people of Iraq.
| A Renewed War on the People of Iraq Cannot be Justified | |
| |
A Security Council resolution endorsing renewed war on Iraq cannot be justified under international law, and cannot be trusted as an authentic reflection of Council concern for international peace and security. Nor can such a resolution be understood as reflecting the view of the majority of the members of the United Nations. A renewed war on Iraq will have catastrophic consequences for the environment of the Persian Gulf, and for millions of innocent people still suffering the consequences of the 1991 Gulf War. Security Council authorization – whether accepted as legitimate or not – will not spare the lives of innocent civilians. Even with clear Security Council authorization, war on Iraq is wrong.