Legality of Iraq war

[FireGarden]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8453305.stm

Committee chairman, Willibrord Davids, said the Netherlands' loyalty to its alliance with the US and UK had taken precedence over the need to ensure the legality of the invasion.

The committee said there had been no UN mandate for the attack, putting the decision to join at odds with international law.

It said "the wording of [UN Security Council] Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force".

Also at the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-war-illegal-dutch-tribunal

 

[Praktik]

Nice to see that in some venues this is getting the close look it deserves.

 

[lionking]

The problem with the OP is that the UN is irrevelent to world affairs.

 

[Praktik]

I was about to say "spoken like a true american" - then I looked at your location..

 

[lionking]

Whatever my nationality, the point still stands I believe. Just look at the number of (rightly ignored) sanctions against Israel as compared to sanctions against other middle eastern nations. (Slightly OT I know).

 

[Upchurch]

The problem with the OP is that the UN is irrevelent to world affairs.

I might agree, but IIRC, UN Resolution 1441 was used as a major (if not the primary) justification by the Bush administration for invading Iraq. Ironically, that makes the UN relevant to the topic of the invasion of Iraq where it might not have otherwise been.

 

[MikeMangum]

I was about to say "spoken like a true american" - then I looked at your location..

Or maybe "spoken like someone with eyes with which to see"?

How is the UN doing stopping that Genocide in Darfur? Or, for that matter, since the invasion of Iraq was "illegal", stopping the US from invading Iraq?

The only thing the UN does effectively is sweep all of it's peacekeepers' sexual assault scandals and the corruption of it's higher ups under the rug. Well, I take that back...they also hosted a really hip "the Jews are evil" conference in Durban. Everyone there got a chance to speak out about the Jews and offer another iteration of their country's own "delenda est" to the chorus.

 

[Praktik]

To suggest that the UN is "irrelevant" to world affairs is like saying Brussels is "irrelevant" to Europe.

Are there examples of action not taken that should have been, action taken that shouldn't have been, and fraud?

Surely. The world is a messy place. With hundreds of competing agendas from every nation in the world, the "too many cooks" effect will result in many outcomes we wish could have been different, or ones that may go against our principles.

Thats the way it works.

But to say the UN is "irrelevant" is an overstatement - regardless of what happens or doesn't happen in Darfur.

Just take one example from their site, the development section. Heck, let's actually winnow it down to ECOSOC:

- Commission on Narcotic Drugs
- Commission on science and technology for development
- regional eceonomic commissions
- stuff to harmonize labelling of hazardous substances and chemicals
- rules for naming conventions (geographical)
- international standards of accounting and reporting

To say the UN is "irrelevant" requires either an ignorance of the vast amount of things the body does outside of major headlines on big stories like Darfur or Iraq - or as expressed by people like John Bolton, a belief that it is "irrelevant" due to the primacy of US power.

I'd say Bolton is more correct than those who highlight a conflict zone that's in the headlines and use that to say the whole body of the UN is "irrelevant."

After all, the law of the jungle really does apply. Strong states do have the capacity to ignore rules as they see fit. And in this case, the Americans pretty much went ahead and did as they liked - not because they couldn't get UN authorization, its possible they could have done with more effort, but because the very act of seeking authorization would set a precedent that American planners wouldn't like to have future presidents constrained by.

 

[Giz]

To suggest that the UN is "irrelevant" to world affairs is like saying Brussels is "irrelevant" to Europe.

Really bad analogy, (Brussels : Europe is far more like Washington DC : USA than UN : World. - though that is also off).

And I think you misstate the "UN is irrelevant" crowd a bit. What a lot of people think is:

1) The UN can achieve a lot if the USA pitches in. If the USA doesn't… then the UN is hamstrung. But the USA could also do aid/peacekeeping on its own. When the UN projects power or rushes emergency disaster relief to somewhere it is often due to the USA (who could have done it anyway).

2) The UN is a mix of democracies, dictatorships and theocracys. A coalition that only consists of democracies may, while limited in number relative to the whole of the UN, have far more moral authority and better judgment.



My view on UN authorizations for war:

1) As a "moral" authority: laughable.

2) As a "legal" authority: perhaps it is technically but I have a minor worry - These kind of legal precedents against starting wars may deter western democracies from starting wars but they are unlikely to deter an aggressive dictator (what will deter dictators from aggression is what they think is the likelyhood of the USA intervening to stop them. Note: not the UN, but the USA… even if the USA were to deploy under UN banners it still requires a US President to be willing to put US Forces there and without that the UN would generally be useless, see Kuwait, Korea etc)

 

[Ziggurat]

The UN has only authorized military intervention twice in its entire history. The fact that it did not do so in the case of gulf war 2 is neither surprising nor significant. What distinguishes military intervention in the former Yugoslavia from gulf war 2? As far as the UN goes, nothing really. Except that Milosevic wasn't bribing the UN and Saddam was.

 

[theprestige]

It's entirely up to the Netherlands to decide if they wish their national sovereignty--for example, in the domain of engaging in warfare--to be subject to the dictates of the UN. If that's what they want, I don't see the problem. But it's not like the UN has any authority over the Netherlands that the Netherlands doesn't agree to.

The Netherlands could just as easily encode into law a rule that it will abide by UN dictates except whenever the Netherlands determines that it would be better off by ignoring UN dictates. But note that even in the case where it abides by UN dictates, it does so by its own authority, not by the authority of the UN.

 

[ddt]

Nice to see that in some venues this is getting the close look it deserves.

Unfortunately, it has taken the Dutch government 7 years to institute a committee of inquiry on this matter. And then not even the usual Parliamentiary Inquiry committee, consisting of MPs, but an independent committee, instituted by the executive. Though it must be said that the quality of its research has been praised. Except then by the PM, Jan-Peter Balkenende, who dismissed the very conclusion on the legality in his reaction yesterday as being "just an opinion". Which led to a very disgruntled reaction by the Labour party, and now there's a half-hearted letter from the executive to the Parliament on which there's now a debate - mind, not (yet) on the findings of the committee, but on the reaction of the government to the publication of the report.

You can find the findings of the committee on its website. There's an English summary of ten pages.

 

[Eyeron]

I might agree, but IIRC, UN Resolution 1441 was used as a major (if not the primary) justification by the Bush administration for invading Iraq. Ironically, that makes the UN relevant to the topic of the invasion of Iraq where it might not have otherwise been.

When blaming America this point must be ignored. It's the popular thing to do with America and Bush bashers.

 

[theprestige]

Unfortunately, it has taken the Dutch government 7 years to institute a committee of inquiry on this matter.

For those of us who don't necessarily know how seriously (or not, as the case may be) the Dutch take UN sovreignty as a matter of Dutch national interest, could you explain what makes this 7-year delay "unfortunate"?

I mean, is the Dutch government bound by Dutch law to submit to UN authority in matters of warfare? Do the Dutch pride themselves, as a matter of national character, on strict compliance with UN mandates? Is there some serious concern among Dutchmen that, by departing from the official UN line in this matter, the Dutch government has perhaps done something wrong?

 

[ddt]

For those of us who don't necessarily know how seriously (or not, as the case may be) the Dutch take UN sovreignty as a matter of Dutch national interest, could you explain what makes this 7-year delay "unfortunate"?

I mean, is the Dutch government bound by Dutch law to submit to UN authority in matters of warfare? Do the Dutch pride themselves, as a matter of national character, on strict compliance with UN mandates? Is there some serious concern among Dutchmen that, by departing from the official UN line in this matter, the Dutch government has perhaps done something wrong?

The Netherlands prides itself on being a good member of the international community. Article 90 of the Dutch constitution states that the Dutch government promotes the international rule of law. The Netherlands houses the ICJ since a century, and more recently, the ICC.

There is no explicit legal requirement that, e.g., war can only be declared after a UN SC resolution. But yes, there is serious concern among Dutchmen that the government has done something wrong by politically supporting the Iraq invasion (Holland did not participate militarily, apart from defensive Patriot batteries stationed in Turkey and Bahrain). You can't just go haphazardly invading countries, IMHO. When you do that, the end is nigh.

My remark that it has taken 7 years was meant in a more wide context. The mandate of the Davids Commission was wider than the legality of the war - and on that point, of course, it hasn't given a legally bounding verdict. There had been numerous questions around the decision process to support the war, similar to those in the UK and the US. There have also been rumours that military offensive support had been given, a.o. reconnaissance flights over Iraq prior to the invasion.

These questions have never been satisfactorily looked into, unlike in the US and the UK, where fairly short after the invasion, inquiry commissions were set up to look into, e.g., how the WMD claim came about. The usual method in Dutch politics - a parliamentary inquiry committee, consisting of Lower House members, which holds public hearings - has always been blocked by the center christian-democrat party CDA and especially its leader Balkenende, who has been PM since 2001 in various coalitions.

Of the big three Dutch parties the Labour party has been the most vocal proponent of such an inquiry, but as part of the current coalition deals in 2006/2007, they've caved in and agreed to not press for such an inquiry. The fact that the government has instituted the Davids Commission in February 2009 is mostly due to pressure from the Labour Upper House members, who are not politically bound by the coalition deals.

 

[Praktik]

Really bad analogy, (Brussels : Europe is far more like Washington DC : USA than UN : World. - though that is also off).

And I think you misstate the "UN is irrelevant" crowd a bit. What a lot of people think is:

1) The UN can achieve a lot if the USA pitches in. If the USA doesn't… then the UN is hamstrung. But the USA could also do aid/peacekeeping on its own. When the UN projects power or rushes emergency disaster relief to somewhere it is often due to the USA (who could have done it anyway).

2) The UN is a mix of democracies, dictatorships and theocracys. A coalition that only consists of democracies may, while limited in number relative to the whole of the UN, have far more moral authority and better judgment.



My view on UN authorizations for war:

1) As a "moral" authority: laughable.

2) As a "legal" authority: perhaps it is technically but I have a minor worry - These kind of legal precedents against starting wars may deter western democracies from starting wars but they are unlikely to deter an aggressive dictator (what will deter dictators from aggression is what they think is the likelyhood of the USA intervening to stop them. Note: not the UN, but the USA… even if the USA were to deploy under UN banners it still requires a US President to be willing to put US Forces there and without that the UN would generally be useless, see Kuwait, Korea etc)

Most points I don't take issue with and I was stabbing in the dark a bit on the brussels thing thinking more of the EU functions operating from there... I was in haste...

But my broader point remains. The idea that the UN is "irrelevant" in international relations is just plain silly. The fact is that there are thousands and thousands of different things going on under UN auspices. The "UN is irrelevant crowd" doesn't recognize this, because to them the UN is a body that:

A) Sometimes the US has to cajole to get what it wants
B) Sometimes the US has to bypass when it can't get what it wants
C) An organization that can't get action on crises like Darfur and Rwanda
D) (optional) a venue for antisemitism

A and B are a product of the fact the most print in the US about the UN is generated when the US is in the process of preparing for war - and more fundamentally - an American-centric worldview.

C) ignores the fact that collective action is, well, collective and that the failures of action in places like Darfur or Rwanda stem mostly from nation states within the UN slowing action due to national interests like resource acquisition or geopolitics or simple unwillingness to sacrifice blood and treasure. (Darfur: China, Russia, Rwanda: France, America) Instead of looking past the UN and to the mechanics of what results in action, they stop short.

D) is a fair enough point, but again, rather more due to the fact that certain nation-states have taken an antagonistic position vis à vis Israel, and use their presence in certain organs of the UN to express those views. Again: the "UN is irrelevant crowd" stops short of analyzing just how these statements and resolutions come into being. Its the nation-states within the UN, not "the UN" that is doing this.

And besides A, B, C, D and there are many, many functions outside of the headline-grabbing items I've listed above. Things that are very much relevant to the world like serving as a venue for complex inter-state negotiations on finance, regulation, labelling, transportation, hazardous and illegal goods, and territorial claims in the ocean and on land. It does humanitarian missions, disease and environmental work, development in third world nations, peacekeeping and observing of "hot" zones, research on the environment and the sociological impediments to growth. Really, the list goes on and on. Many millions around the world have felt the impacts of these things, which means that no matter what some cowboys in the heartland say, the UN is relevant to the world at large.

 

[WildCat]

Oh crap, now they might send a sternly worded letter.

 

[Skeptic]

But my broader point remains. The idea that the UN is "irrelevant" in international relations is just plain silly

That's quite true. Sometimes it does considerable damage.

 

[Skeptic]

It's not that I believe the antisemitic dictator's club known as the UN will reach conclusions that have the slightest relation to reality, but Bertrand Russell noted (in Bertrand Russell Speaks his Mind) that legal and moral wars are by no means the same thing.

For example, he notes that foreigners going to America must sign a paper on the plane saying they disapprove of George Washington: that they will no engage in any action against the legal government in the USA, which is precisely what Washington did. The American revolution was illegal, but moral.

Similarly, all the talk about the USA "invading a sovereign country", for instance, miss the point that -- quite apart from the fact that this does not make the war illegal or else all wars were illegal, and the hypocritical ignoring of all other invasions except those by the USA -- would, even if it made the war "illegal", would not make it immoral.

 

[peptoabysmal]

...
The "UN is irrelevant crowd" doesn't recognize this, because to them the UN is a body that:

A) Sometimes the US has to cajole to get what it wants
B) Sometimes the US has to bypass when it can't get what it wants
C) An organization that can't get action on crises like Darfur and Rwanda
D) (optional) a venue for antisemitism
...

E. Sex Scandal
F. Oil for Food Scandal