Q: Attention has focused on U.S. President George W. Bush's speech to the United Nations, but how significant was the speech by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan?
A: Annan's speech was very significant both in terms of its content and the fact that it was released last night to both the press and the White House. Ironically, the UN secretary-general launched what amounted to a verbal pre-emptive strike to try and head off a U.S. military one. Annan's speech, the main thrust of which was that there was "no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations," was undoubtedly addressed to Bush more than its purported international audience. It was far, however, from the "lecture" described by some in the American media. It put the onus on the United Nations to act responsibly as much as it did on the United States. This issue could mark a watershed for the United Nations if it is to continue to wield the very legitimacy referred to by Annan, and is a measure of the gravity he is attaching to the debate.
Q: How important was it for Bush to go to the United Nations like this?
A: This is a major step for Bush and his administration, especially when contrasted with the undisguised distain that many American politicians, such as Jesse Helms, have demonstrated toward the organization in the past. It will also deflect some of the criticism that the United States has attracted in the past for its alleged unilateralist tendencies. Like Annan, however, Bush had other audiences besides the international one - in his case, his party political power base and his electorate. In other words, he had to show his internationalist credentials while avoiding overly upsetting conservatives that often view the United Nations with suspicion.
Bush's foreign audience may prove harder to convince than his domestic one, and what is a stretch for his administration may prove less impressive to the world's more committed multilateralists. That said, Bush's speech was probably ambiguous enough to satisfy both parties, and to also give those allies and potential allies he may have at the United Nations a trophy to bring back to their own electorates - namely his professed desire for the United Nations to solve the problem of Iraq. Of course, alongside that must stand the implicit, if unspoken, threat that if the United Nations does not solve the problem presented by Iraq to America's liking, America will. That may still prove a bitter pill for many UN members to swallow.
Bush also questioned whether the United Nations would indeed choose to be a player in solving a growing crisis. "We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind." Bush said the United States was prepared to make that stand, alone, or with the United Nations. As Annan sought to affirm the legitimacy of the United Nations, Bush challenged it.
Q: Has Bush clearly laid out the case that Iraq has failed to comply with existing UN resolutions?
A: Yes. Saddam Hussein has violated a series of UN resolutions despite his promises to comply. They include UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 687 (which demanded that Iraq renounce involvement with terrorism and allow no terrorist organizations in the country), UNSC Resolution 688 (that Iraq cease the systematic repression of minorities in the country), UNSC Resolution 707 (that Baghdad fully comply with international weapons inspectors), and UNSC Resolution 1373 (that it stop sheltering and supporting terror groups that direct violence against Iran, Israel and Western governments).
Q: What routinely happens when a UN Security Council resolution is violated?
A: Very little. The Council repeatedly calls for states or non-state groups to stop violating international norms of civilized behavior, often in the context of civil wars. Usually the members of the United Nations do no more than act diplomatically, unless the strategic interests of a major power are involved. Morocco has, for example, been obstructing a UN-ordered referendum in the Western Sahara for over 10 years, without any action taken. In the former Yugoslavia, all sides repeatedly ignored UN resolutions calling for cease-fires or negotiations.
Q: Are other states guilty of acts similar to those of which Bush has accused Iraq?
A: Yes. Many states both support international terrorism and persecute their civilian populations in some way. There are now 190 members of the United Nations, and a few states that are not members, such as Taiwan. In 2000, Freedom House listed only 121 democracies, some of which act in ways that could easily be seen as persecution of their civilian population. Russia, Turkey and Indonesia are examples.
There is also reasonable evidence to suggest that the United States at the very least turned a blind eye to violations of the UN arms embargo on Yugoslavia during the early 1990s. A Dutch report on the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, released in April, documents the close involvement of the Defense Department and the CIA in supplying weapons to Bosnian Muslims during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia, in clear violation of UNSC Resolution 713.
Few states, however, are actively attempting to acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Further, Iraq has demonstrated a willingness and ability to use such weapons, both against other nations and its own citizens.
Q: Bush listed five actions that constitute "what we now expect of the Iraqi regime." Can Saddam Hussein comply?
A: Bush stated that Iraq is expected to do the following: cease efforts to develop WMDs and long-range missiles, as well as destruction of all inventories and related materials; end support for terrorism and work to suppress it; halt persecution of Iraq's civilian population; resolve all issues related to personnel missing, killed or captured, and property destroyed as a result of the invasion of Kuwait; and end all trade outside the oil-for-food agreement and permit UN administration of the funds.
Ironically, of these five, complying with UN resolutions regarding WMD are probably the most straightforward and where compliance is easiest to determine. The remaining actions each require a much more subjective measure of compliance. Further, guaranteeing the rights of its citizens is incompatible with the survival of Saddam's totalitarian regime.
Q: Is failure to meet any one of these expectations alone sufficient to justify even multilaterally-endorsed military action?
A: Failure to comply with an internationally accepted mandate regarding WMD would justify multilateral action. Failure to end support for terrorism is probably not sufficient justification, although an argument for unilateral U.S. action might be made under Article 51 of the UN Charter (regarding a nation's right to self-defense) if a clear link was established between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bush has elevated promoting respect for human rights to the level of WMD development and support for international terrorism. While governments have a moral obligation to respect the rights of their citizens, failure to do so does not carry with it such potentially dire implications for the international community. It is a step too far to view such a failure as sufficient to justify a military response, and the international community has resisted doing so in the past. Likewise, failing to adequately account for people killed, missing or captured in war, to make reparations, or to abide by trade restrictions are not in themselves sufficient to warrant military action.
Q: Did Bush imply that the United States would take unilateral military action against Iraq if the United Nations made no move to enforce existing UN resolutions?
A: No, strictly speaking, although unilateral action of some kind was clearly implied. Bush stated that the United States will work with the UNSC to formulate new resolutions to hold Iraq accountable for violations of existing UN resolutions. He then said, "But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power."
If action is unavoidable should the present Iraqi regime does not adhere to existing UNSC resolutions, it follows that the Bush administration is committed to taking action regardless of whether or not it has UN support, or indeed, international support of any kind. Bush did not specify that any such action will necessarily be military. Bush did, however, state that if the United States is forced to act, the Iraqi regime will lose its power. This suggests the strong possibility of U.S. military action, although it does not specify it. Bush essentially said that if Iraq defies UN resolutions, the United States will inevitably take some action that will result in regime change.
Q: How does Bush plan to secure support from the United Nations?
A: Bush will collaborate with UN delegates to formulate a resolution that will be acceptable to the UNSC while fitting U.S. demands on Iraq as closely as possible. Bush said that the United States will "work with the UN Security Council for necessary resolutions" to hold Iraq accountable for past UN violations. He did not, however, make the specifics of these possible resolutions known, nor did he say when and who may introduce them to the United Nations. Currently, the French and British delegations to the United Nations are said to be working with the United States on possible resolutions to present regarding action on Iraq.
Details of possible resolutions are still unclear, but it seems that some authorize possible military action. A resolution that sets a deadline for Iraq to admit UN weapons inspectors and grant them free access to all sites or face military action to force a regime change is clearly one option being considered by the Bush administration. Another option first proposed by French President Jacques Chirac would involve ordering the Iraqi government to grant entry to UN weapons inspectors, and forcing Saddam to do so through multilateral military action if necessary. Although this plan could involve military action, it does not require regime change. Bush is in close talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding other possible options.
Q: Saddam Hussein has had biological and chemical weapons in the past, and there is widespread agreement that he continues to seek additional weapons and develop a nuclear capability. But while Bush stated that logic forces the assumption that Iraq is pursuing WMD development, he offered no conclusive proof of such. What is the implication of a policy that calls for pre-emptive action in the absence of compelling evidence?
A: Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres said that there is a higher consideration than strategy, and that is ethics. That is where lives of people are decided. Absent clear evidence of WMD proliferation in Iraq, and without a specific connection to al Qaeda, Bush has taken the decision about a pre-emptive military effort out of the strategic realm and into the sphere of ethics: Should the United States, with or without international coalition, adopt the pre-emptive use of force as a policy? Such a shift represents a major alteration of U.S. foreign policy. To date, the United States has consistently engaged in military efforts after an act of aggression has been committed, not before. What have been the policies of a relatively few nations for years (for example, the 1981 Israeli pre-emptive strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor), have now become ethical questions about the nature of U.S. foreign policy and the international community's reaction to alleged WMD proliferators.
Full Text of the President's Speech
Full Text of the Speech Delivered by UN Secretary-General Annan
CDI researchers Sofia Aldape, Mark Burgess, Christopher Hellman, Noriyuki Katagiri, Colin Robinson and Dan Rothem all contributed to this analysis.
BACK TO THE TOP  TERRORISM PROJECT HOME LINKS CDI HOME
|
