The United Nations and the Iraq Conflict
The United Nations and the Iraq Conflict:
Recently, a powerful multination tool or
a puppet of money and power?
Lauren McLeod
250191600
Tom McDowell
Politic Science 20E
March 5, 2004
The signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 began a new era of promoting international co-operation in attempts to achieve worldwide peace and security with the establishment of the League of Nations, lead by Woodrow Wilson, the president of the United States at the time, and the victorious allied powers of World War I.1 Nonetheless, this league was proven ineffective with the outbreak of the Second World War, but reinforced with the emergence of the United Nations, whose primary task was that of multinational collective security. With the signing of the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, the world undertook a new experiment in organizing states to control war. Worldwide political will to improve the League of Nations had increased after the devastation of two World Wars, the Holocaust and the dawning of the age of nuclear weapons. The international community began a regime of anti-isolationism and committed itself to safeguarding future generations.2 Unlike the League of Nations, United Nations members agreed upon giving the authority to enforce peace through diplomatic, economic, and even military action in response to threats or breaches of international peace.3 Any attack on a member country would be regarded as an attack on the whole. Nonetheless, as time progresses and the United Nations increases in member size, confidence in the organization's ability to protect and restore peace has somewhat declined. In recent years questions have arisen as to the possibility that the individual sovereign states, which form the United Nations, at some point defect from the collective enterprise in pursuit of their own narrow national interests. Moreover, since the UN was formed on the basis of the multinational convergence of numerous political, social and economic interests, does at any point the organization lose validity by beginning to represent one particular power? While the Security Council as an organ of the United Nations is relevant as a producer of a multinational council for the resolution of international breaches of collective security, due to power, money and state importance, the UN remains a puppet-like framework for which sovereign states use to solve national agendas, as highlighted by the recent Iraq conflict.
The Security Council, one of the United Nations six organs, has a "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security."4 The Council goes about doing so through a system of representation of the 185 member states that hold a seat in the General Assembly. The Council is made up of fifteen country members; five permanent (the United States, Great Britain, Russia, France and China) and ten non-permanent, each of which is voted for in the General Assembly and remains in the Council for a two year term. Each country is given one vote. In order to form a consensus on an issue, there must be a nine vote majority agreeing with the issue. In addition, each permanent member is given the ability to veto, which is able to strike any issue being examined by the Council.5
The Security Council, the most powerful framework used for assisting in multinational conflicts, has the ability through member participation to discuss and resolve issues through mandates and resolutions. Resolutions take effect only with a majority agreement and outline the UN's initiatives for a situation. This piece of legislation that comes into effect within the Security Council has the power to guide the entire body of the UN (military and monetary support) in dealing with a situation that may arise. The mandates set out in the Council are internationally bound and must be regarded as law.6
Without the initial unanimous support for improving the situation in Iraq within the Security Council, leading to the passage of numerous resolutions, it would have been nearly impossible for the United States and its' allies to bring Saddam Hussein's reign of terror to a halt. While the Security Council did not explicitly authorize the Iraq War, based on the language of Resolution 1441 (passed November 8, 2002), and the resolutions produced within the Council and practices that preceded it (Resolutions 687 and 678, passed in the early 1990s as a result of the Gulf War, encompassing cease fire terms, and the authorization of the UN to use force it not upheld), it is obvious that the Council had acknowledged the seriousness of the situation.7 Resolution 1441 led to even more monumental mandates, found within Resolutions 1483, 1500 and 1511, which had the power to guide the United States into the disarmament and reconstruction of Iraq and its' government.8 Without a specific mandate, it is impossible for the United Nations to achieve their goals in dealing with an international conflict.
The Security Council, guided under section V of the UN Charter, has the ability through its state members, super power veto ability and importance of their mandates, plays the largest multinational role dealing with international conflicts and collective security. Therefore, the Council, as an organ of the UN, has the ability to 'make or break' a sprouting international issue. Nonetheless, throughout the entire process of discussing, understanding and resolving an issue the Council is usually turned into a puppet-like framework in which, due to the reasons explained below, is often tainted by the hidden agenda of the UN's ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The Security Council, guided under section V of the UN Charter, has the ability through its state members, super power veto ability and importance of their mandates, plays the largest multinational role dealing with international conflicts and collective security. Therefore, the Council, as an organ of the UN, has the ability to 'make or break' a sprouting international issue. Nonetheless, throughout the entire process of discussing, understanding and resolving an issue the Council is usually turned into a puppet-like framework in which, due to the reasons explained below, is often tainted by the hidden agenda of the UN's sovereign member states.
Power. Since the resurrection of the UN Charter in 1943, it has been obvious that the international community would have an insurmountable problem in applying collective security against a state in a position of power. Whether the state is regarded as one of the five 'superpowers', or simply holds high economic or military importance, it is often regarded that collective security against these countries proves to be highly disruptive to international society.9
The 'Super Powers', a term bred out of the Cold War representing a small group of countries that held political, economic and nuclear control over the international community,10 controlled the League of Nations during the first half of the 20th century, just as they dictate much of the United Nations mandate in the 21st century. These 'Super Powers' were the fore-fathers of the League of Nations (the United States, the Soviet Union, China, France and Great Britain), and continued as the advocates of the newly improved multinational organization when the UN was adopted.11 Therefore, these countries implemented a veto power for themselves within the Security Council, which has proven to be both a useful and extremely detrimental tool. This veto ability was used on several occasions during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union in attempts to limit one anothers' power.12 As stated by Cordell Hull, the Secretary of State at the time, in 1944, "The U.S. government would not remain one day in the UN without retaining the veto power."13 This veto power has lead to the control of the Security Council, the highest decision making organ in the UN regarding peace processes, by these five countries.
It is not only the great powers that are difficult to manage. It is virtually impossible to impose sanctions on countries with considerable economic and military strength, such as the United States, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, because the sanctions would be ineffectual.14 Because the UN is an IGO, it relies on its members to produce monetary and military resources in order to fuel its missions. Moreover, if the largest military and economic suppliers are not supporting the UN, and rather, are fueling a brigade against UN sanctions, the United Nations has little hope of completing its mandate.15
Since the beginning of established societies, it has been apparent that the leaders of the world are always the richest countries with the highest levels of development and military. This allows the state to be independent of outside countries; however, will continuing to gain power through holding firm control over the smaller countries below it. The Iraq War depicts this issue exactly. Through examination, it is obvious that the countries which were responsible for leading the military actions in Iraq were of high importance in our Modern World. The chief countries, the United States and Great Britain, both have large populations, are permanent members on the Security Council with the ability to veto and are of the most wealthy states in the world. The United States is the fourth highest populated country in the world, with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $10.4 trillion in 2003. Last year alone, Bush's administration dedicated $276.6 billion to military action. One of the U.S.'s allies, Great Britain, while much smaller in size, had a GDP of $1.52 trillion, and exceeded $31.7 million in military expenditures. In contrast, Iraq is approximately one fifteenth the size of these two countries. In addition, the Middle Eastern Country has an annual GDP of only $58 million and spent a mere $1.3 billion on military expenditures last year.16 As described above, even in an idealistic organization, such as the UN, it is impossible for all member states of the Security Council to be on a level playing field when countries such as the United States, or Great Britain, have such a tight grasp on military and economic power.
Money. In order to produce collective security on an international level, a large sum of money is necessary. As stated before, the members of the UN are responsible for fueling the organization through monetary funds. However, this not only affects the aggressors, but also the defenders. The effect of economic hardship as a result of imposing sanctions on a dependent economic partner has the ability to play a role in swaying a country's viewpoint. Switzerland, as an example, refused the sanctions proposed for Mussolini's Italy during the League of Nations, due to the indirect effect it would have had on their country as a result of being interdependent on Italy.17
Economic interdependence has forever influenced the sway of popular votes, and the Iraq war was no different. The question of history, economy and friendship was at stake with Canada's lack of support for the Bush administration's attack on Iraq. The bilateral relationship between the United States and Canada is perhaps the closest and most extensive in the world. It is represented in the staggering volume of trade, the equivalent of over $1 billion a day in goods, services, and investment income. The two countries have set the standard by which many other countries measure their own progress. In addition to their close bilateral ties, Canada and the U.S. also work closely through multilateral fora. Canada, like the United States, being a charter signatory to NATO and the United Nations relies heavily on the interconnectedness of itself and the U.S. Nonetheless, in certain areas, Canada does not share the same political views, which almost lead to the collapse of Canada's relationship with its neighbor to the south. Canada's Prime Minister, put in a tough position, especially after Great Britain (Canada's 'Queen') agreed to support Bush. After much deliberation, Canada chose to represents its anti-Iraq standpoint, which althought did not tear the relationship apart, it did have an influence of security at the border and between the two states.18
State Importance. The concept of collective security is based upon the assumption that all victims that suffered a breach of security or peace are regarded with equal importance. Nonetheless, living in our world at the turn of the 21st century, with its extensive range of religions, political formation, social and cultural ideals and economic influences it is virtually impossible for every member of the UN to react to an attack on a city in the same way. Due to alliances and historical importance, it is obvious that certain states are regarded as more important to attack or defend.19
Alliances, the association of nations, formed to advance common interests or causes are very influential within the Security Council. With the end of World War II, in addition to the creation of the UN, emerged two alliances, which dictated the force behind two 'teams' in the UN. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), included the members of the ally countries, and the countries in support of the Triple Entente erected the Warsaw Pact. These organizations are better defined as "West" and "East" and continued to produce tension within the Security Council until well into the late years of the Cold War. The placement of alliances within this multinational organization constantly lead to tension and power struggles.
Historical importance for the attack against or defense of a state continues in today's world. Past issues determining such support, or lack there of, include political systems (democracy vs. communism) and religious systems (Christianity vs. the Muslim world).20 Often, member states in power feel the need to repress difference in attempts to maintain their order within the UN. Certain states, which appear to pose as a threat will often be more centered in the issues, as apposed to more neutral states which little can be gained from controlling. "Despite increased interconnectedness among states as a general rule, some states still do not matter very much."21 While some states, especially those which either hold political, social or religious viewpoints in opposition of the super powers or have no economic or conventional connection with the super power will be involved in an abundance of conflicts that are very rarely resolved quickly.22
Due to these historic alliances and the United States' fear of losing power to an alter-lifestyle country, the Bush administration deemed it necessary to act quickly on the decade old democracy vs. Saddam Hussein situation in Iraq. After September 11th, 2001, governments generated a world wide peace movement dedicated to a peaceful alternative to war. Bush in a speech claimed that it was imperative to take swift action before the "axis of evil" breaks down the security of the "civilized world".23 Noting that once Bush had invaded Iraq, through bloody military action, the 'Western World' had "prevailed", leaving the United States and their allies "to engage in securing and reconstructing the country."24 While Bush's coup in Iraq goes somewhat unjustified due to a lack of retaliation by the Iraqi regime and no findings of weaponry that breached Resolution 687,25 the United States and its allies go unpunished for their role in the war which was not directly granted to them by the UN. Bush justified his actions by claiming they were part of his global 'War on Terrorism'. Moreover, the United Nations, which is currently influenced on all levels by the United States' power and brainwash by the U.S.'s 'need for democracy' on a world wide scale, has agreed to play whatever role it is assigned to them in the reconstructing of Iraq.26
Brian Urquhart, a representative of the United Nations, stated that the UN's "objective, must be to achieve the rule of law on the international level as it has been already achieved on the national level."27 By developing an organization such as the United Nations, it appeared as though members of the most powerful nations in the world were striving for collective security, not only for themselves, but on an international level after almost half a century of in-humanitarianism. However, while the sovereign states of the 20th century world became increasingly interconnected and interdependent, and membership to the UN increased, political regimes, religious insensitivity, economic barriers and military empowerment remained complex. While the formation of the United Nations and its organs were meant to eradicate global humanitarian issues, the member states within the IGO remained within the frame of mind of individual countries. The Security Council's (the most relevant organ to international peacekeeping and security) powers are equivalent, in substance, to those of a Supreme war-making organization;28 however, due to the selfishness of the sovereign member states, it is impossible for the United Nations to emerge as a genuine force in international affairs due to a concentration on power, money and status.
League of Nations. Evanston: Northwestern University. 2002. Febraury 15, 2004.
url: http://www.library.northwestern.edu/govpub/collections/league/background.html
2 Weiss, Thomas G., David P. Forsythe & Roger A. Coate. The United Nations and Chaning World Politics. Boulder: Westview Press. 1994. pg. 3
3 United Nations. New York: United Nations. 2004. February 26, 2004.
url: http://www.un.org/
4 "Charter of the United Nations." United Nations. New York: United Nations. 2004. February 27, 2004. url: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
5 United Nations. New York: United Nations. 2004. February 27, 2004. url: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
6 United Nations. New York: United Nations. 2004. February 26, 2004.
url: http://www.un.org/
7 Farer, Tom J. "Law and Force After Iraq: A Transitional Moment." The American Journal of International Law. 2003. page 628-642 Journal Storage - The Scholarly Journal Archive. 2004. February 29, 2004. url: http://www.jstor.org/
8 United Nations. New York: United Nations. 2004. February 26, 2004.
url: http://www.un.org/
9 Stoessinger, John G. The United Nations and The Superpowers - China, Russia and America. New York: Random House. 1977 pg 7
0 Sens, A. & P. Stoett. "International Institution and Law." Global Politics: Origins, Currents, Directions. ITP Nelson. 1998. pg 175
1 Stoessinger, John G. The United Nations and The Superpowers - China, Russia and America. New York: Random House. 1977 pg 7
2 Urquhart, Brian. The United Nations and International Law. Londo: Cambridge Inuversity Press. 1985. pg 15
3 Stoessinger, John G. The United Nations and The Superpowers - China, Russia and America. New York: Random House. 1977 pg 3
4 Weiss, Thomas G., David P. Forsythe & Roger A. Coate. The United Nations and Chaning World Politics. Boulder: Westview Press. 1994. pg 23
5 Farer, Tom J. "Law and Force After Iraq: A Transitional Moment." The American Journal of International Law. 2003. page 628-642 Journal Storage - The Scholarly Journal Archive. 2004. February 29, 2004. url: http://www.jstor.org/ pg 633
6 "GDP 2003." Countries of the World. Photius Coutsokis. 2003. February 29, 2004.
url: http://www.theodora.com/wfb/
7 Weiss, Thomas G., David P. Forsythe & Roger A. Coate. The United Nations and Chaning World Politics. Boulder: Westview Press. 1994. pg 23
8 "Background Note: Canada." U.S. Department of State. Washington: Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. 2003. March 4, 2004.url: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm
9 Weiss, Thomas G., David P. Forsythe & Roger A. Coate. The United Nations and Chaning World Politics. Boulder: Westview Press. 1994. pg 22
20 Taft, William H. & Todd F. Buchwald. "International Law and The War in Iraq." The American Journal of International Law. 2003. page 628-642 Journal Storage - The Scholarly Journal Archive. 2004. February 29, 2004. url: http://www.jstor.org/ pg 639
21 Weiss, Thomas G., David P. Forsythe & Roger A. Coate. The United Nations and Chaning World Politics. Boulder: Westview Press. 1994. pg 24
22 Farer, Tom J. "Law and Force After Iraq: A Transitional Moment." The American Journal of International Law. 2003. page 628-642 Journal Storage - The Scholarly Journal Archive. 2004. February 29, 2004. url: http://www.jstor.org/ pg 641
23 Gardner, Richard N. "What Future for the UN Charter System of War Prevention?" The American Journal of International Law. 2003. page 590 - 598 Journal Storage - The Scholarly Journal Archive. 2004. February 29, 2004. url: http://www.jstor.org/ pg 592
24 Abid, pg 594
25 Taft, William H. & Todd F. Buchwald. "International Law and The War in Iraq." The American Journal of International Law. 2003. page 628-642 Journal Storage - The Scholarly Journal Archive. 2004. February 29, 2004. url: http://www.jstor.org/ pg 630
26 Gardner, Richard N. "What Future for the UN Charter System of War Prevention?" The American Journal of International Law. 2003. page 628-642 Journal Storage - The Scholarly Journal Archive. 2004. February 29, 2004. url: http://www.jstor.org/ pg 593
27 Urquhart, Brian. The United Nations and International Law. Londo: Cambridge Inuversity Press. 1985. pg 1
28 Nicholas, H.G. The United Nations as a Political Institution. London: Oxford University Press. 1975. pg 76
