Jump to content

Iraq disarmament crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Soulpatch (talk | contribs) at 23:37, 6 March 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In the decade following the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations passed 16 Security Council resolutions calling for the disarmament of Iraq. In 1998, US President Bill Clinton expressed concerns about Iraq's failure to disarm, noting that he believed the country would give its weapons of mass destruction to other countries. Clinton also stated his belief that Saddam Hussein would eventually use these weapons - it was "only a matter of time." Paul Wolfowitz, the "hawkish" conservative military analyist for the Defense Department under Ronald Reagan, had in formulated a new foreign policy with regard to Iraq and other "potential aggressor states", dismissing "containment" in favor of "preemption": Strike first to eliminate threats. Clinton, himself had begun plans to remove Hussein from power, which were put on hold when the UN, under Kofi Annan], brokered a deal wherein Iraq would allowed weapons inspectors back into the country.

This was short lived, however, and Clinton, along with Bush Senior, Colin Powell, and other former Bush administration officials, dismissed calls for "preemption" in favor of continued "containment." This was the policy of George W. Bush as well for his first several months in office. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, killed what was then believed to be nearly ten-thousand people, and brought to life Wolfowitz's and other hawks' advocacy for "preemptive action"; and Iraq was wideley agreed to be a likeley subject of this new policy. Powell has continued to support the philosophy behind containment; as a moderated degree of action, and it is his advice which President Bush has balanced with Wolfowitz's calls to action for a moderated approach, beginning with the US appeals to the UN which resulted in UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

During most of 2002 and into 2003, the United States government has called for "regime change" in Iraq and threatened to use military force to overthrow the Iraqi government unless Iraq rids itself of all weapons of mass destruction and convinces the UN that it has done so. See also Disarmament of Iraq. US diplomatic pressure to bring Iraq to compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441, has created a diplomatic crisis in the UN, where some are in agreement with the US position, while others are dissenting; notably France, Germany, Belgium, China and Russia.

The US has given the following reasons for its seeking to force Iraq's compliance:

  1. That the government of Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, are anti-democratic and violate human rights - and has even been implicated in attempts at genocide.
  2. That the government of Iraq has caches of weapons of mass destruction, i.e. biological, chemical, as well as has secret programs to produce nuclear weapons.
  3. That the government of Iraq has supported terrorist operations and groups, and is likely to supply them with weapons of mass destruction at some future point.

Several close allies of the U.S. (e.g. Germany, Belgium and France), although mainly sharing that estimation of the United States, oppose a military intervention because they claim that it will not decrease but increase the risk of terrorist attacks. Although the UK and governments of other members of the EU and NATO also support the US position, opinion polls show that in general their populations are against an attack, very much against without strong UN Security Council support. February 15, 2003, peace marches demonstrated the capacity of the peace movement to mobilize hundreds of thousands in the major cities of Europe, and almost as many in major cities of North America - which itself seems to be influencing the US position back towards the UN.

The serious concerns of war opponents arise in part from a fear of US hegemony (NATO nations with proportionately larger Muslim populations, e.g. France, Canada, disproportionately seem to have this view). However, most governments and US sympathizers state that their concern rises from the estimation that a military way of solving will foment more radical Islamism and terrorism, and question all borders in that region (especially in Kurdistan, a disputed region that demographically includes areas in Turkey, Iran and Syria as well as Iraq - see also the frequent wars between Arab nations in Middle East conflict). Perhaps most importantly it is thought to jeopardize all efforts of supporting nonviolent democratic Islam, led by moderates who are themselves generally against a war. For most war opponents, the American intention largely exceeds the fate of Iraqi disarmament. The relationship between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden appears forged for hiding other goals. Beyond disarmament, it is in Saudi Arabia that Bush is interested. It is in Riyadh that are the financial and strategic keys of the Middle-East.

These allies and movements prefer a diplomatic solution to disarm Iraq and support democratization in the region (similar to Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik in the 1970s which finally led to the peaceful revolutions in the Eastern Bloc in 1989).

Other opponents of the American invasion plan say that the US's reasons are selective and ultimately insufficient, pointing out that states that the US regards as friendly to it share some of these attributes. For example, Saudi Arabia is not a democracy and is closely connected to the terrorists who executed the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon. Also, Kuwait did not become a democracy with universal suffrage after the UN-Iraq War. Many states have weapons of mass destruction, the US more than any other, and the US itself (they claim) has not only supported terrorist operations and groups, but also engaged in terrorism.

Many opponents of the plan also claim that some or all of the above claims are vastly misrepresented by the Bush administration, especially in the connection between Iraq and terrorist groups. Fundamentalist Muslim groups generally do not support Iraq, as it is a secular nation that does not enforce what they perceive as Muslim law dictated by the Koran - in a tape reputedly released by Osama bin Laden in Feburary 2003 Saddam Hussein is referred to as an 'ignorant infidel' and placed only second on the list of evils, after an invasion by the United States - of course collaboration between them would likely result in just such a tape, and it is impossible to verify that such tapes do not come from the CIA, as is widely believed about all such evidence in the Arab world.

Although G. W. Bush originally stated that existing resolutions were sufficient to justify the US launching a war, Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, insisted that the UN must be involved, and it is widely believed that Colin Powell, US secretary of state, agreed strongly with this view, and that a new resolution was required.

The United States led the tumultuous effort within the United Nations to pass UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which called for sweeping new powers for weapons inspectors within Iraq and threatens "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to comply with the resolution. This measure has been successful, according to the peace faction, as Iraq has allowed inspections to continue (after a four-year hiatus) soon after the measure passed, and has responded in a timely fashion to concerns raised about it.

Others, including Colin Powell and Hans Blix, hold that Iraq has never complied fully with the terms of this resolution. Iraq was supposed to exhaustively list its existing weapons of mass destruction by December 8th 2002, and the inspectors would then confirm their existence and subsequent destruction. Inspection is not supposed to be a game of 'Hide and Seek', but a verification of disarmament, and inspectors are not trained as detectives, nor should the onus of proof fall upon them to find such weapons. Suspicion of withholding such evidence is enough to violate the terms of 1441. However, factions differ on whether 'serious consequences' are necessarily inclusive of an outright invasion of Iraq.

In February 2003 the effort to draft a second resolution in the UN Security Council was underway. It was influenced at least in part by a near-revolt inside the UK Labour Party, which has the power to remove Tony Blair as PM of the UK, and which has made clear that without another resolution, Blair is proceeding without the support of most of the UK's voting population, which is strongly against a war including only US and UK forces. Current events in this effort are dealt with further below.

International Law

The position under international law is controversial. Article 2 of the United Nations Charter explicitly forbids UN members from employing "the threat or use of force" against other states, except with UN Security Council authorization, or in self defence. The United States has said repeatedly that it is willing to invade Iraq without Security Council authorization.

The United States has never accepted the jurisdiction of the World Court in The Hague with respect to its own citizens or military operations, but recently compromised this position to allow for only temporary immunity. Some suspect that the war in Iraq is timed to be conducted before this immunity expires, rendering US forces immune to any prosecution.

US Constitutional Issues

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate held hearings on the proposed invasion July 31 and August 1, 2002.

Richard Butler, who headed the previous weapons inspection team into Iraq (UNSCOM), testified that Iraq did indeed pose a threat. Other members of UNSCOM have taken a strongly opposite position on this matter.

Other issues discussed were cost (The 1991 Gulf War cost the allies about $60 billion), whether or not former allies of the United States from the UN-Iraq War would support the invasion, and whether or not congressional approval was legally necessary to authorize an invasion.

Bush's legal advisors argue that the administration has the legal authority under United States law to invade Iraq without the approval of Congress. The Constitution grants the power of declaring war to Congress, but past presidents, particularly since World War II, have often ordered military action in the absence of such a declaration. In 1973, amid increasing domestic controversy about the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of the president to undertake prolonged military action. No president since has recognized the constitutionality of this act, and most legal scholars believe it would not survive a challenge in court.

Moreover, even if congressional approval were required, the Bush administration may argue that approval has already been granted by the Persian Gulf Resolution of January 12, 1991, and the resolution of September 14, 2001, which authorized military action against terrorism.

These legal fine points have been rendered moot to a degree by the passage of 1441, which seems to obligate all members of the UN Security Council, including the United States, to "best efforts" to ensure compliance by Iraq. Treaties override all law in UN signatory countries, although this view has often been disputed by the United States, it seems clearly to argue for the Bush position in this case. In addition, NATO requires all members to come to the aid of any other member which calls for it in a military threat situation, and Turkey has in fact called for such aid.

Whether the threat is actually one created by another NATO member is one of the many issues that led to the hot debate inside NATO in February. A famous and widely publicized exchange between German foreign minister Joschka Fischer and US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld led to Fischer literally waving his finger at Rumsfeld, and lecturing him that in an alliance of democracies, he had to "make the case" and that "I am sorry but I am not convinced." Turkey itself has opposed any intervention in Iraq in the past fearing that it would lead to an independent republic of Kurdistan which would likely re-activate Kurdish separatists inside its own borders. Thus, its calling for NATO aid, and the use of NATO as an organizing instrument or justification for war, seems very suspicious.

Iraqi opposition groups

In early August of 2002, US Vice President Dick Cheney met with leaders of the Iraqi opposition groups, pledging that the Bush Administration intended to replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic government. This pledge is viewed cynically by those who recall G. H. W. Bush's call for Iraqis to overthrow Saddam in 1991, which led to the murder of a large number of Shiites in Southern Iraq when US air forces held back and led Saddam's helicopters fly in the southern no-fly zone to defeat the uprising. Cheney was the Secretary of Defense in that first Bush administration.

Dick Cheney, in his role as Vice President of the United States, has taken the lead in advocating an invasion, maintaining that it is foolish to wait until Iraq has completed construction of a nuclear weapon. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay have also been vocal in urging an invasion. Colin Powell appeared to favor diplomatic engagement, until very recently (see below).

War on Terrorism

As part of its War on Terrorism, the President of the United States, George W. Bush, announced on September 4, 2002 the Bush Doctrine that the United States would launch a preemptive military strike at any nation that could put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists, and had a right to do so. At the same time he stated he would seek congressional approval for a strike against Iraq, which he received shortly before the mid-term elections in November.

Continued at:

See Also

Iraqi Regular Army, military of Iraq, Iraqi Republican Guard, Hubbert peak

January 18, 2003

  • Global protests against war on Iraq in cities around the world, including Tokyo, Moscow, Paris, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Cologne, Bonn, Goteborg, Istanbul, and Cairo. NION and ANSWER hold protests in Washington D.C. and San Francisco, California.

February 5

February 7

February 8

  • Sections of a 'dossier' issued by the UK government, which purported to present the latest British intelligence about Iraq, and which had been cited by Tony Blair and Colin Powell as evidence for the need for war, were criticized as plagiarisms. They had been copied without permission from a number of sources including Jane's Intelligence Review and a 12-year-old doctoral thesis of a Californian student that had been published in the US journal Middle East Review of International Affairs. Some sentences were copied word-for-word, and spelling mistakes had been reproduced from the original articles. Downing Street responded by saying that the government had never claimed exclusive authorship and that the information was accurate.

February 10

  • France and Belgium broke the NATO procedure of silent approval concerning the timing of protective measures for Turkey in case of a possible war with Iraq. Germany said it supports this veto. The procedure was put into operation on February 6 by secretary general George Robertson. In response Turkey called upon Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, which stipulates that member states must deliberate when asked to do so by another member state if it feels threatened.

February 12

February 14

  • A very large demonstration was held in Melbourne to protest against the Australian government's support for the USA's policy on Iraq. Organisers estimated that 200,000 people came out on to the streets, while some news sources put the number at "up to 150,000". [1]
  • UNMOVIC chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented a report to the United Nations Security Council. They stated that the Iraqis had been co-operating well with the inspectors and that no weapons of mass destruction had been found, but that the Saddam Hussein regime had still to account for many banned weapons believed to have been in his arsenal. Mr Blix also expressed doubts about some of the conclusions in Colin Powell's Security Council presentation of February 5, and specifically questioned the significance of some of the photographic evidence that Mr Powell had presented.

February 15

  • Global protests against war on Iraq: People around the world demonstrated against the planning of war against Iraq. In Rome one million people were on the streets, in London one million. In Berlin there were half a million in the largest demonstration for some decades. There were also protest marches all over France as well as in many other smaller European cities. Protests were also held in South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, Canada and in the USA, in around 600 cities in total.

February 18

  • *Hours before the first ships transporting heavy United States military equipment to Turkey were supposed to reach port, the Turkish government announces that it will withhold approval to dock unless the United States increases a reciprocal $6 billion foreign aid grant to $10 billion. The Bush administration indicated that no substantial changes will be made to the proposed aid package. [2]

February 24

  • Secretary of State Colin Powell states at a meeting in Beijing that "It is time to take action. The evidence is clear ... We are reaching that point where serious consequences must flow." His speech appears to imply that military action is likely to follow within three weeks, based on previous Pentagon briefings.

February 25

  • The United States, Britain and Spain present to the UN Security Council a much-anticipated second resolution stating that Iraq "has failed to take the final opportunity" to disarm, but does not include deadlines or an explicit threat of military force. Meanwhile, France, Germany, and Russia offer a counter-proposal calling for peaceful disarmament through further inspections.
  • Both major parties of Kurdistan, an autonomous region in Northern Iraq, vow to fight Turkish troops if they enter Kurdistan to capture Mosul or interfere in Kurdish self-rule. Between them the two parties can mobilize up to 80,000 guerillas - most likely no match for the modern Turkish army, but a severe blow to the unity of U.S. allies on the Northern front expected in the U.S. plan to invade Iraq.

February 26

  • Hans Blix stated that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy it's al-Samoud 2 long range missiles - a weapon system that was in violation of the UN Security Council's resolutions and the US treaty with Iraq. These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said
  • Gerorge Bush commits publicly to a post-invasion democracy in Iraq, says it will be "an example" to other nations in Arabia
  • Tony Blair passes a motion in the UK House of Commons supporting a new resolution at the UN Security Council and presumably authorizing a war (although the motion carefully avoids saying so). 120 UK Labour Party MPs dissent and vote against it - double the number who opposed the previous such motion - but the UK Conservative Party backs the government's motion.
  • Saddam Hussein, in an interview with Dan Rather, rules out exile as an option.

February 27

  • UN Security Council meeting on Iraq ended without forming an agreement on timeline for further weapons inspections or future reports.

February 28

  • Iraq is expected to begin the process of destroying Al Samoud two missiles on Saturday. Hans Blix, U.N. chief weapons inspector said "It is a very significant piece of real disarmament". However, the spokesman of the White House, Ari Fleischer declared that the Iraq commitment to destroy these missiles is a fraud that President George W. Bush had predicted, and indicated that the United States wanted a total and complete disarmament of Iraq. He also repeated that if the United Nations did not act to disarm Baghdad, the United States would lead a coalition of voluntary countries to disarm Saddam Hussein.

March 1

  • Under UN supervision, Iraq begins destroying four of its Al Samoud missiles.
  • The Turkish speaker of Parliament voids the vote accepting U.S. troops involved in the planned invasion of Iraq into Turkey on constitutional grounds. 264 votes for and 250 against accepting 62,000 US military personnel do not constitute the necessary majority under the Turkish constitution, due to 19 abstentions. [3]
  • The United Arab Emirates calls for Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to step down to avoid war. The sentiment is later echoed by Kuwait.

March 2

  • The country of Bahrain becomes the third Arab country to call for Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to step down. Kuwait and the United Arab Emerites had previously made similiar announcements.
  • The Observer publishes what is purported to be a leaked memo dated January 31, 2003 showing the U.S.' intent to spy on UN Security Council members from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea, and Pakistan to try to determine how they will vote. The memo's authenticity was questioned by the conservative pundit Matt Drudge, whose critique was also cited by others, such as the Unification Church owned newspaper the Washington Times [4]. Drudge pointed out that website's transcription of the memo contained several errors, namely a misspelling of the name of the memo's author (Kozu instead of Koza), an misspelling of the NSA's "top secret" stamp (with a "1" instead of an "L"), and several words written with a non-US spelling, as well as a date-stamp in the European format. The Observer said that it altered the memo to include British spellings so that its readers were not confused, but did not address the other inaccuracies. The Observer also corrected the spelling of the author's name on their website after the problem was pointed out, and stands by its story. Wayne Madsen, who had been a communications security analyst with the NSA in the mid-1980s, has been quoted as saying that that he believes the memo is authentic. He speculates that the memo was directed at the security agencies of the other nations that constitute the Echelon network, namely Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. This news story was picked up by newspapers in Europe and Canada, but initially ignored by the American press.
  • Iraq destroys six more Al Samoud missiles, bringing the total destroyed to 10 out of an estimated 100 missiles ordered eliminated by the UN. The White House continues to dismiss Iraq's actions as "part of its game of deception." Iraq indicates that it may halt destruction of the missiles if the U.S. indicates it will go to war anyway.
  • The Sun reports that military action against Iraq could begin as soon as March 13, hours after the UN is likely to vote on the proposed second resolution put forth by the United States, Britain, and Spain.

March 3

  • Under intense American pressure, Turkey indicates that its Parliament will consider a second vote on whether to allow U.S. troops to use Turkish bases for a military attack on Iraq.
  • Iraqi technicians use bulldozers to crush six more of the banned Al-Samoud 2 missiles, bringing to 16 the number destroyed in three days.

March 4

  • Iraq destroys three more Al Samoud 2 missiles, bringing to 19 the number Baghdad has crushed out of 100 ordered destroyed by the UN. Iraq also destroyed a launcher and five engines in a rush to prove it is disarming before a crucial U.N. report on March 7. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the new actions "a positive development" while the White House remained unconvinced saying, "Despite whatever limited head-fakes Iraq has engaged in, they continue to fundamentally not disarm."

March 5

  • Pope John Paul II called on Catholics to commemorate Ash Wednesday by fasting and praying for peace. He sent an envoy, Cardinal Pio Laghi, to President Bush, to urge him not to go to war. Laghi told Bush that the Pope believed that a war would be a "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified.
  • Two days before his scheduled update to the United Nations on Iraqi cooperation with inspection, Hans Blix credited Iraq with "a great deal more of cooperation now", although still expressed some skepticism as to whether or not the cooperation would continue.
  • Secretary of State Colin Powell said that US intelligence has indicated that Hussein has ordered the production of more Al Samoud 2 missiles parts and engines. The Iraqi government did not deny the claim but simply said once again that they considered the missiles to be legal.


Further Reading

  • Threatening Storm: The United States and Saddam's Iraq, Kenneth Pollack, Random House, 2002, hardcover, 494 pages, ISBN 0375509283
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Iraq_disarmament_crisis&oldid=727103"