Security, Territorial Borders and British Iraq Policy: Buying a Blair Way to Heaven?

Abstract

This paper looks at the development of British government policy towards Iraq in the run up to and during the war of 2003 with particular focus on the territorial borders of Iraq. The paper argues that, in contrast to what we might expect from the perspective of classical geopolitics, the issue of the location of Iraq's borders was largely taken for granted by the UK government. The territorial integrity of Iraq was repeatedly asserted by British ministers, including the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. However, the paper suggests that this disguises an important and potentially significant challenge to the role that territorial borders played in the Iraq crisis and conflict, and this is connected to wider changes in thinking about territorial borders in international politics that have characterised the Labour government's foreign policy thinking. This challenge sees territorial borders' significance more in terms of the nature of the regime they help to delimit than the geopolitical significance of their location. Also, the respect to be given to those borders is significantly influenced by the willingness and ability of that regime to contribute to dominant political and politico-economic agendas, including democracy, human rights, counter-terrorism and economic liberalisation. It is argued that policy towards Iraq demonstrates effectively this distinctive approach developed by the UK government, and points to weaknesses as well as strengths of adopting such a position on one of the most important institutions of the international system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

John Williams and Tim Roach would like to acknowledge the financial support of the University of Durham's Junior Research Associate scheme that enabled Tim Roach to undertake the empirical research work used in this paper. They also acknowledge the helpful comments provided by Anoush Ehteshami, Peter Stirk and David Kerr on an earlier draft of the paper, and by three anonymous referees for Geopolitics.

Notes

1. The dominance of the ‘neo-cons’ in the US at this time is a key theme of John Kampfner's analysis of the situation. See John Kampfner, Blair's Wars (London: The Free Press 2003) especially pp. 152–91.

2. We are grateful to an anonymous referee for making just such an argument in a report on an earlier version of this paper.

3. For a discussion of the UK-US special relationship that looks in some detail at Iraq see John Dumbrell, ‘The UK-US Special Relationship in a World Twice Transformed’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17/3 (2004); for a more journalistic view see Peter Riddel, Hug Them Close: Blair, Clinton, Bush and the Special Relationship (London: Politicos 2003).

4. The first by the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, 7.7.03, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/813/81302.htm. The Second by the Intelligence and Security Committee on ‘Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction: Intelligence and Assessment’, 9.9.03, http://www.civil-service.net/wmd/iwmdia.pdf. The third followed an enquiry by Lord Hutton into the fierce political row that erupted in the aftermath of the suicide of UK WMD expert David Kelly following his role in a BBC report that the UK government knowingly issued false intelligence in its September 2002 dossier, ‘Report of the Enquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr David Kelly C.M.G.’, 28.1.04, http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/index.htm. The fourth, known as the ‘Butler Report’, after its chairman former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler, ‘Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction’, 14.7.04, http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2004/07/14/butler.pdf.

5. E.g. Barbara F. Walter, ‘Explaining the Intractability of Territorial Conflict’, International Studies Review 5/4 (2003) pp. 137–53.

6. During the last sixty years in particular there has been an international aversion to changing the physical location of territorial borders, but even where this has not been altered, the juridical character of the line has changed, moving from being the internal border between units of a federation to being a sovereign state border. The cases of the former Yugoslavia, Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia are prominent examples. New borders have been created as a result of conflict, too, although the full and formal acceptance of these is sometimes moot, and often conveniently so – the division of Cyprus in 1974, of Israel/Palestine in 1967 and Korea in 1954 provide three enduring examples.

7. Walter (note 5) p. 137.

8. One example of this sort of argument is provided by Robert Cooper, The Postmodern State and the World Order (London: Demos and the Foreign Policy Centre 2000). Cooper is particularly significant in this context because he was a leading foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair.

9. Leading studies of the causes of war in international relations typically refer to territorial borders in this fashion. E.g. John Vasquez, The War Puzzle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1993); Kal Holsti, Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648–1989 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991).

10. Walter (note 5).

11. E.g. Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty – Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1999).

12. E.g. Peter Andreas, ‘Redrawing the Line: Borders and Security in the Twenty-first Century’, International Security 28/2 (2003) p. 81.

13. E. g. A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea-power upon History, 1660–1783 (New York: Hill and Wang 1957 originally published 1893); H. J. Mackinder, ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’, Geographical Journal 23 (1904); Saul B. Cohen, ‘Geopolitical Realities and United States Foreign Policy’, Political Geography 22/1 (2003) pp.1–33.

14. For a critical analysis of this form of geo-politics see Gearóid Ó Tuathail, Critical Geopolitics: The Politics of Writing Global Space (London: Routledge 1996). For a recent example of the kind of analysis Tuathail critiques see Cohen (note 13).

15. Mark W. Zacher, ‘The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force’, International Organization 55/2 (2002) pp. 215–250.

16. Andreas (note 12).

17. Zacher (note 15).

18. E.g. John Agnew, ‘The Territorial Trap: The Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory’, Review of International Political Economy 1/1 (1994); John Agnew and Stuart Corbridge, Mastering Space: Hegemony, Territory and International Political Economy (London: Routledge 1995); Michael J. Shapiro and Hayward Alker (eds.), Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows and Territorial Identities (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1996); Thuathail (note 14).

19. The best general survey of the issue of humanitarian intervention remains Nicholas J. Wheeler, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000). The idea of ‘quasi states’ was pioneered in Robert H. Jackson, Quasi-states (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1990).

20. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre 2001).

21. E.g. Wheeler (note 19).

22. Lord Goldsmith, ‘Iraq: Resolution 1441’, available from http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7445.asp.

23. Quoted in Christoph Bluth, ‘The British Road to War: Bush, Blair and the Decision to Invade Iraq’, International Affairs 80/5 (2004) p. 874.

24. Geoff Hoon, ‘Defence and Security: A Snapshot of the Issues’, 25.5.99, http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391647&a=KArticle&aid=1013618398236.

25. Ibid.

26. Tony Blair, ‘PM Statement on Iraq Following UN Security Council Resolution 1441’, 8.11.02, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3206.asp.

27. E.g. ‘Prime Minister's Iraq Statement to Parliament’, 24.9.02, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1727.asp; ‘PM Speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet’, 11.11.02, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1731.asp.

28. Tony Blair, ‘PM Answers Questions on MTV Forum’, 6.3.03, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3250.asp.

29. Rosemary Hollis, ‘Getting out of the Iraq Trap’, International Affairs 79/1 (2003).

30. Blair, ‘Prime Minister's Iraq statement’ (note 27).

31. Tony Blair, ‘Saddam and His Regime Will Be Removed’, 25.3.03, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3347.asp.

32. Cooper (note 8).

33. Tony Blair, ‘Doctrine of International Community’, 24.4.99, http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page1297.asp.

34. Kampfner (note 1) pp. 50–53.

35. E.g. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977).

36. The definitive statement of neo-realist theory is, of course, Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: Addison, Wesley Longman, 1979).

37. E.g. Bull (note 35) p. 13. In relation to UK government policy, this position is supported by Bluth (note 23) p. 875.

38. For a helpfully concise discussion of a solidarist international society, see Andrew Hurrell, ‘International Law and the Making and Unmaking of Boundaries’, in Allen Buchanan and Margaret Moore (eds.), States, Nations and Borders: The Ethics of MakingBoundaries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003) pp. 280–284.

39. Nicholas J. Wheeler and Tim Dunne, ‘Good International Citizenship: A Third Way for British Foreign Policy?’ International Affairs 74/4 (1998). See also Nicholas J. Wheeler, ‘Humanitarian Vigilantes or Legal Entrepreneurs: Enforcing Human Rights in International Society’, in Simon Caney and Peter Jones (eds), Human Rights and Global Diversity (Ilford: Frank Cass 2001).

40. John Gray, ‘Blair's Project in Retrospect’, International Affairs 80/1 (2004) pp. 45–46.

41. This is a consistent theme of Kampfner (note 1).

42. Jack Straw, ‘Principles of a Modern Global Community’, 10.4.02, http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391647&a=KArticle&aid=1018466002161; Jack Straw, ‘Failed and Failing States’, 6.9.02, http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391647&a=KArticle&aid=1031273860289.

43. Robin Cook, ‘Human Rights into New Century’, 17.7.97, http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391647&a=KArticle&aid=1013618392902. For a critique of the consequences of such a claim see Chris Brown, ‘Cultural Diversity and International Political Theory: From the Requirement to ‘Mutual Respect’?’ Review of International Studies 26/2 (2000) pp. 199–213.

44. Paul Williams argues that ‘liberal principles of political economy’ are one of the three key ‘big ideas’ in New Labour's foreign policy, alongside multilateralism and Atlanticism. Paul Williams, ‘Who's Making UK Foreign Policy?’, International Affairs 80/5 (2004) p. 922.

45. For the idea of ‘supra-territoriality’ see Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000).

46. Danilo Zolo, Invoking Humanity: War, Law and Global Order (London: Continuum 2002).

47. Tony Blair, ‘PM Warns of Continuing Global Terror Threat’, 5.3.04, http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page5461.asp; 28.9.04. Jack Straw ‘We Must Engage in Europe and in the Wider World’, speech delivered 21.4.04, http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391647&a=KArticle&aid=1079980004115.

48. Blair, ‘Continuing Global Terror Threat’ (note 47), emphasis added. The idea that 9/11 marks a turning point in Blair's foreign policy thinking is supported by Williams (note 44) p. 920 and, more strongly, by Bluth (note 23) p. 874.

49. Straw, ‘We Must Engage’ (note 47).

50. John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1999).

51. Bluth (note 23) especially pp. 872–880.

52. ‘Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction – The Assessment of the UK Government’, 24 September 2002, http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/iraqdossier.pdf.

53. See note 4.

54. Bluth (note 23) pp. 880–881.

55. ‘Saddam Hussein: Crimes and Human Rights Abuses’, 2.12.02, http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/hrdossier.pdf.

56. ‘Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Evasion and Intimidation’, 3.2.03, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page1470.asp.

57. Blair, ‘Saddam and His Regime Will Be Removed’ (note 31).

58. Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer, ‘An Unnecessary War’, Foreign Policy 134 (Jan/Feb 2003).

59. Blair, ‘Continuing Global Terror Threat’ (note 47).

60. Ibid.

61. Bluth (note 23) pp. 884–885.

62. Blair, ‘Continuing Global Terror Threat’ (note 47).

63. Available at http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page3280.asp.

64. Ibid.

65. Blair, ‘Continuing Global Terror Threat’ (note 47).

66. E.g. Concern at the failure of UN Security Council resolution 1546 to include the Transitional Administrative Law, guaranteeing Kurdish federal rights resulted in some Kurdish leaders fearing for their future autonomy after elections in Iraq where the numerical majority of the Shi'a may be decisive. Jim Muir, ‘Kurds Anxious over Iraq's Future’, BBC News Online, 6.7.04, http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3848587.stm.

67. ‘Blair, Saddam and His Regime Will Be Removed’ (note 31).

68. Muir, ‘Kurds Anxious’ (note 66).

69. Ibid.

70. Blair, ‘Continuing Global Terror Threat’ (note 47).

71. The Bush Doctrine was most clearly set out in his speech at West Point military academy on 1 June 2002. Kampfner (note 1) p. 173.

72. Blair, ‘Continuing Global Terror Threat’ (note 47).

73. For a range of views on this see Michael Cox et al., ‘Forum on the American Empire’, Review of International Studies 30/4 (2004).

74. For an interesting discussion of preventative war see Roundtable, ‘Evaluating the Pre-emptive Use of Force’, Ethics and International Affairs 17/1 (2003).

75. Blair's belief in his own powers of persuasion, and the ability of other political leaders to resist those powers, is one of Kampfner's main themes (note 1).

76. Chris Brown, Sovereignty, Rights and Justice: International Political Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity, 2002) p. 39.