The United Nations and Iraq: a role beyond expectations

Abstract

The management of the Iraq crisis between the summer of 2002 and the outbreak of the war on 20 March 2003 has given rise to passionate debates on the role played by the UN and some of its key members, on its ability to ensure international peace while meeting American security interests, and on the consequences for the organization of the American decision to go to war without UN approval. Behind these issues is the question of the UN's relevance – its Security Council in particular – in a post-11 September world, in which the rules regulating the use of force have been shaken. This article argues that the role played by the UN in the period prior to the war went much beyond expectations, given the American predisposition vis-à-vis the institution and the nature of the crisis, and concludes that such a role is a demonstration of the UN's relevance.

Notes

Robert Kagan wrote that the Bush administration was ‘perhaps the least inclined to multilateral action of any in decades’, ‘The Healer’, The Guardian (London), 3 Mar. 2003.

On US ambivalence vis-à-vis multilateralism, see Patrick Stewart, ‘Multilateralism and its Discontents: The Causes and Consequences of US Ambivalence’, in Patrick Stewart and Shepard Forman (eds.), Multilateralism and US Foreign Policy, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002, pp.1–44.

This is true for the UN but also for NATO, which was not involved in the military response despite the invocation of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

See Condoleeza Rice, ‘Campaign 2000. Promoting the National Interest’, Foreign Affairs, Vol.79, Jan./Feb. 2000, p.47; Stewart Patrick, ‘Don't Fence Me In: The Perils of Going It Alone’, World Policy Journal, Vol.18, No.3, 2001, pp.2–14; Derek Chollet and Robert Orr, ‘Carpe Diem: Reclaiming Success at the United Nations’, Washington Quarterly, Vol.24, No.4, Autumn 2001, pp.7–18.

On the neo-conservative camp and multilateralism, see Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power. America and Europe in the New World Order, New York: Alfred Knopf, 2003, pp.39–40; ‘Multilateralism, American Style’, The Washington Post, 13 Sept. 2002; Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol, The War over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission, San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003 (see in particular ‘A Distinctly American Internationalism (Bush II)’, pp.63–75).

John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, provides one of the most radical views on multilateralism and its flaws. See for example, ‘Should We Take Global Governance Seriously?’, Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol.1, No.2, Fall 2000.

See Eric Schwartz, ‘US Policy toward Peace Operations’, in Thierry Tardy (ed.), Peace Operations after 11 September 2001, London: Frank Cass, 2004, pp.39–57.

See Kaplan and Kristol (n.5 above).

Ibid., p.63.

Richard Haass, ‘Multilateralism for a Global Era’, Remarks to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC, 14 Nov. 2001, accessed at www.state.gov/s/p/rem/6134.htm.

See Bob Woodward, Bush at War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002, pp.49, 83–5.

See Neil Mackay, ‘Bush planned Iraq “regime change” before becoming President’, Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 15 Sept. 2002.

President Bush, State of the Union Address, Washington, DC, 29 Jan. 2002.

See ‘Origins of Regime Change in Iraq’, Proliferation Brief (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Vol.6, No.5, March 2003, pp.1–3.

See Remarks by Dick Cheney to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103^rd National Convention, 26 Aug. 2002, accessed at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html.

UN Secretary-General's Speech to the UN General Assembly, New York, 12 Sept. 2002, accessed at www.un.org/webcast/ga/57/statements/sgE.htm.

President Bush's Remarks at the UN General Assembly, New York, 12 Sept. 2002, accessed at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html).

The suggestion that Bush decided on war in early July 2002 is made by Nicholas Lemann, ‘How it came to War’, The New Yorker, 31 Mar 2003.

Michael Klare, ‘Pentagon Planning, Not Diplomacy, Sets US Agenda on Iraq’, Foreign Policy in Focus, 2002.

Ibid.

The National Security Strategy of the USA, Washington, DC: White House, 20 Sept. 2002.

Lemann argues that Powell ‘persuaded Bush to take the question to the UN’ during a dinner in early August 2002 (n.18 above).

See Colin Powell Interview on ABC, 5 May 2002, accessed at http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/text/0505pwl2.htm.

See Cheney (n.15 above); ‘White House in Disarray over Cheney Speech’, The Guardian, 2 Sept. 2002; Prepared Testimony of US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees regarding Iraq, Washington, DC, 18–19 Sept. 2002, accessed at www.senate.gov/ ∼ armed_services/statemnt/2001/010621rumsfeld.pdf.

Blair's role is clearly established in John Kampfner, Blair's Wars, London: Free Press, 2003, ch.10. See also Peter Stothard, 30 days: A Month at the Heart of Blair's War, New York: HarperCollins, 2003.

Bush met Blair at Camp David on 6 September 2002, where a deal could have been made, by which ‘Bush promised that if the UN did deliver genuine disarmament, he would pursue the diplomatic route [through the UN]’, while ‘Blair promised that if that failed, he would go to war’. See ibid. pp.196–8. Kagan contends that ‘it was Blair, and Blair alone, who convinced President Bush last summer to go to the UN Security Council to seek a new resolution on Iraq’ (n.1 above). See also Alain Frachon, ‘Selon Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair a infléchi la position américaine’ [‘According to Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair influenced the American position’] Le Monde, 21 Jan. 2003; Peter Mandelson, ‘Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction Adjournment Debate’, House of Commons, 24 Sept. 2002, accessed at www.petermandelson.com/iraq1.shtml.

See ‘Europeans see the World as Americans do, but Critical of US Foreign Policy’, Worldview 2002, Washington DC: The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Sept. 2002, pp.2–3.

See Brent Scowcroft, ‘Don't Attack Saddam’, Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug. 2002; Zbigniew Brzezinski, ‘If we must fight…’, Washington Post, 18 Aug. 2002; James Baker, ‘The Right Way to Change a Regime’, New York Times, 25 Aug. 2002.

By contrast Richard Holbrooke wrote: ‘The road to Baghdad runs through the UN Security Council’, adding ‘few Americans understand the enormous force, both moral and political, that a Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention carries in the rest of the world.’ ‘Take it to the Security Council’, Washington Post, 27 Aug. 2002, p.A15.

Baker (n.28 above).

See opinion poll in Newsweek, 30 Aug. 2002.

On the illegality of the war, see ‘War Would be Illegal’, The Guardian, 7 Mar. 2003 (letter from international lawyers); Center for Economic and Social Rights Emergency Campaign on Iraq, Tearing up the Rules: The Illegality of Invading Iraq, Brooklyn, Mar. 2003; ‘Legality of Use of Force against Iraq’, ‘Opinion’ by Public Interest Lawyers on Behalf of Peacerights, London, 10 Sept. 2002.

The Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the UK signed a letter strongly supporting the US position (the so-called ‘Letter of the Eight’). ‘Europe and America Must Stand United’, The Wall Street Journal, 30 Jan. 2003. In the same vein, see Statement of the Vilnius Group Countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia), 5 Feb. 2003; accessed at website of the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs www.am.gov.lv/en/?id=3576).

Statement on Iraq by the Non-Aligned Movement, Kuala Lumpur, 25 Feb. 2003; accessed at www.bernama.com/events/newnam2003/readspeech.shtml?declare/dc2202_iraq.

Jack Snyder, ‘Imperial Temptations’, The National Interest, Spring 2003, No.71, p.34.

Resolution 1441 (2002) states that ‘Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions’, but gives Iraq a ‘final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations’ through the establishment of a complete declaration of all prohibited activities. Any failure to comply with this offer would constitute a ‘further material breach’ that would be reported to the Council. Iraq would then face ‘serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations’.

See Colin Powell's remarks to the UN Security Council, 5 Feb. 2003; accessed at www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300pf.htm.

See Anne-Marie Slaughter, ‘The Will to Make it Work’, Washington Post, 2 Mar. 2003, p.B01.

On the American side, see Powell, interview on Sky News, 24 Mar. 2003; accessed at www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/18980pf.htm. On the British side, see Attorney General's ruling, ‘Legal basis for use of force against Iraq’, 17 Mar. 2003; accessed at www.number-10.gov.uk/print/page3287.asp.

Resolution 1483 (2003) marked the modest reassertion of the UN with the definition of the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, then created by UNSC resolution 1500 (2003) and headed by the late Sergio Vieira de Mello.

See Shashi Tharoor, ‘Why America Still Needs the United Nations’, Foreign Affairs, Vol.82, No.5, Sept.–Oct., pp.67–81; David Rieff, ‘Hope is not enough’, Prospect, No.91, Oct. 2003, pp.26–32.

On the US side, UN relevance was first mentioned in Bush's address to the UN General Assembly in September 2002. He mentioned it again at a press conference on 22 February; accessed at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/print/20030222-2.html. Also see Sen. John Warner's remarks in Testimony of US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld before the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding Iraq, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 19 Sept. 2002; accessed at www.senate. gov/ ∼ armed_services/statemnt/2001/010621rumsfeld.pdf. For a radical approach, see Richard Perle, ‘Thank God for the Death of the UN’, The Guardian, 21 Mar. 2003.

See Tharoor (n.41 above).

Tharoor, ‘Lots of Concerns besides Iraq’, International Herald Tribune, 14 Feb. 2003.

Listed in: ‘Report of the UN Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization’, UN doc., A/57/1, 2002.

See Mats Berdal, ‘The UN Security Council: Ineffective but Indispensable’, Survival, Vol.45, No.2, Summer 2003, pp.7–30.

See EOS Gallup Europe Poll, Jan. 2003, cited in Agence France Presse Release, Paris, 30 Jan. 2003. According to this poll, 82% of European citizens would not support a military operation that was not UN legitimized.

See Worldviews 2002, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Chicago, June 2002; Newsweek, 30 Aug. 2002; ‘Poll: Divided On Iraq’, CBS News, 6 Mar. 2003, accessed at www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/06/opinion/polls/main543034.shtml); ‘Poll: Losing Patience With the UN’, CBS News, 10 Mar. 2003, accessed at www.cbsnews. com/stories/2003/03/18/opinion/polls/main544511.shtml, and ‘Poll: Americans Back Ultimatum’, CBS News, 18 Mar. 2003, accessed at www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/10/opinion/polls/main543446.shtml. While the American support for a UN-legitimized military operation reached 84% in late August 2002 (Newsweek), it went down to 64% in late February 2003 (CBS News), and to 32% just before the operation in mid-March (CBS News).

See ‘Poll: Losing Patience With the UN’, CBS News, 10 Mar. 2003 and ‘Poll: Americans Back Ultimatum’, CBS News, 18 Mar. 2003 (n.48 above).

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, published by The Gallup Organization, Washington, DC, 22–23 April 2003. See also ‘Public Supportive of UN Role in Iraq’, Poll Analyses, The Gallup Organization, Washington, DC, 30 April 2003, accessed at www.gallup. com/poll/releases/default.asp?YR = 2003&MO = 4.

See Conclusions of the EU Council on Iraq, Brussels, 27 Jan. 2003, accessed at http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/med_mideast/intro/gac.htm#me270103; Conclusions of the European Council (extraordinary meeting on Iraq), Brussels, 17 Feb. 2003, accessed at http://europa.eu.int/comm/councils/bx20030217/index_en.htm; ‘Europe and America Must Stand United’ and Statement of the Vilnius Group Countries (n.33 above); African Union, ‘Declaration of the Central Organ of the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution of the Africa Union on the Iraq Crisis’, Press Release No.006/2003, Addis-Ababa, 3 Feb. 2003; Statement on Iraq by the Non-Aligned Movement, Kuala Lumpur, 25 February 2003 (n.34 above); Final Declaration of the Arab League Summit, Sharm Al-Sheikh, 1 Mar. 2003, accessed at www.sis.gov.eg/league/html/8i.htm.

Madeleine Albright, ‘Think Again: The United Nations’, Foreign Policy, No.138, Sept.–Oct. 2003, p.17.

The National Security Strategy of the USA, Washington DC: White House, 20 Sept. 2002. On the legality of preemptive use of force, see Anthony Clark Arend, ‘International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.26, No.2, Spring 2003, pp.89–103.

Kofi Annan was however criticized by the American ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Kevin Moley, for having talked about ‘The decision to go to war without specific authorization by the Security Council’ before the Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, 24 April 2003. See ‘US Diplomats Object to Annan Statements on Iraq’, accessed at http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/usandun/03042402.htm.

See ‘Show of Hands: How Votes may be Cast’, Guardian, 25 Feb. 2003; ‘US Fails to Secure UN Votes’, New York Times, 10 Mar. 2003; ‘Allies Split over Hopes for New Resolution’, The Guardian, 13 Mar. 2003.

While acknowledging that ‘international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack’, the document continues by stating that ‘We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries’, before concluding that ‘the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively’. See The National Security Strategy (see n.21 above), p.15.

Berdal (n.46 above), p.18.

See Michael Glennon, ‘Why the Security Council Failed’, Foreign Affairs, Vol.82, No.3, May–June 2003, pp.16–35.

David Malone, cited by Thomas Weiss, ‘The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.26, No.4, Autumn 2003, p.156.

See Edward Luck, presentation at the ‘International Symposium on the US and the UN’, Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace, Washington, DC, 23 Jan. 2002.

See Weiss (n.59 above), pp.152–3.

Ibid., pp.18 and 26.