Legality of Iraq war

[ddt]

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.

That is so very true. The US, UK and Dutch governments have all used this resolution as justification for the war. That makes at the same time relevant the role of the UN, and utterly irrelevant how you may feel about the UN.

 

[Praktik]

E. Sex Scandal
F. Oil for Food Scandal

Yep good additions. Thought about those afterwards. It's as though the the UN is defined entirely by what makes the US news cycle..

The other one I forgot about, though less frequent nowadays, are the editorials about how paying UN dues is a waste of taxpayer's money and should be stopped.

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,

Exhibit A.

 

[Upchurch]

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

I don't follow. What do you mean?

 

[Upchurch]

The UN has only authorized military intervention twice in its entire history.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[ddt]

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.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

QFT. Of course, war should be a very much a last resort. I presume that Ziggurat means Korea and Kuwait with the two authorizations. He then overlooks the many cases in which the UN has decided to deploy UN forces to stop or stabilize a conflict. That's also military intervention. And while you may point at the failures, there have also been successful UN missions, e.g., Cyprus or East Timor.

 

[Beerina]

"Give up WMDs or 'there will be consequences'." The US pretended, publicly, that this included authorization. Other countries pretended, publicly, that it did not. Both to serve the populations back home.

Objectors don't have a leg to stand on. Sorry!

 

[theprestige]

The Netherlands prides itself on being a good member of the international community.

As long as the Netherlands is a member of this international community I don't see that it has much to be proud of. Seems like the Dutch would be a better example to the world if they had a default policy of doing what seemed right to the Dutch, rather than a default policy of following the UN's lead.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I honestly think you made some good points, and overall the current Dutch position on the subject of this thread makes more sense to me now.

 

[Praktik]

"Give up WMDs or 'there will be consequences'." The US pretended, publicly, that this included authorization. Other countries pretended, publicly, that it did not. Both to serve the populations back home.

Objectors don't have a leg to stand on. Sorry!

So it wasn't possible for politicians who didn't believe that there was UN authorization for a war and occupation to do so on principle?

They were all pandering?

It's not that hard for me to say that there were plenty of True Believers in the Bush Admin, some who likely genuinely believed the UN resolutions did authorize war had to be mixed in with those who didn't think they needed it in the first place.

 

[Praktik]

As long as the Netherlands is a member of this international community I don't see that it has much to be proud of. Seems like the Dutch would be a better example to the world if they had a default policy of doing what seemed right to the Dutch, rather than a default policy of following the UN's lead.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I honestly think you made some good points, and overall the current Dutch position on the subject of this thread makes more sense to me now.

linky no worky

 

[NWO Sentryman]

E. Sex Scandal
F. Oil for Food Scandal

G. Stand by at Srebrenica.

 

[Praktik]

G. Stand by at Srebrenica.

That was covered under C.

 

[carlitos]

E. Sex Scandal
F. Oil for Food Scandal

G. Boutros-Boutros Ghali's son's Mercedes?

The Netherlands prides itself on being a good member of the international community.

If my country was built below sea level, that would be part of my MO as well.

 

[FireGarden]

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.

The quote which applies is the one which says, effectively, that no nation can take it upon itself to be the world's policeman. It said "the wording of [UN Security Council] Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force".

It's not up to America to enforce UN resolutions. America's only legal cause for war was self-defence. So it's a matter of how much danger you think America was in.

Some people in this thread seem to think that the judgement in the OP was made by the UN. I don't think the UN has made such a judgement, and I don't know if it could with two of the accused having veto power.

Kofi Annan gave his opinion years ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

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.

QFT

 

[Ziggurat]

QFT. Of course, war should be a very much a last resort. I presume that Ziggurat means Korea and Kuwait with the two authorizations.

Yes.

He then overlooks the many cases in which the UN has decided to deploy UN forces to stop or stabilize a conflict.

The UN has deployed peacekeeping forces multiple times. But outside the two cases mentioned above, such forces were never intended to engage in conflict with another military force. So I don't consider them military interventions, but police actions (though there is some irony to the fact that Korea was called a police action even though it was full-blown war).

 

[Praktik]

(though there is some irony to the fact that Korea was called a police action even though it was full-blown war).

Indeed... I've thought about that often myself..

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's not up to America to enforce UN resolutions.

One of the sillier statements in this thread.

Yes it is up to America, and all of the other contributing and member nations, to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions. Absent that support and action, UNSC resolutions are utterly worthless, pointless, and neutered from the moment of their passing.

The enforcement of sanctions from 1991-2003 was an agreed set of UN sanctions that, sadly, member nations one by one failed to support. One of the few nations who didn't fall down on that job was the US, though IIRC, there were US, UK, Canadian, French, and Spanish ships in the PG and Red Sea up to the point that sanctions became overcome by events in 2003 with a new chapter begun by a coalition, American led, that included UN member states.

DR

 

[FireGarden]

One of the sillier statements in this thread.

Yes it is up to America, and all of the other contributing and member nations, to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions.

You can do better than that, Darth. Your statement does not contradict mine, since you are saying that it is for the international community to enforce resolutions -- America is not the international community.

ETA:

The enforcement of sanctions from 1991-2003 was an agreed set of UN sanctions

The enforcement of sanctions was a sanction.
More clearly: the sanctions were agreed by the UN, so was the enforcement of the sanctions. Do you see how this contrasts with the war? The quote again: "the wording of [UN Security Council] Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force".

So I stand by what I said.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You can do better than that, Darth. Your statement does not contradict mine, since you are saying that it is for the international community to enforce resolutions -- America is not the international community.

You are at odds with some simple facts, yet again. The UN Security Council and the UN member nations. That is who explicitly must contribute forces to, material and money to, and enforce UNSC sanctions.

Please don't play the idiot and attempt to use this nebulous concept of "international community" when I was specific for a good purpose. That UN and UNSC member America chose to undertake the expense and trouble, and take the lead on supporting and enforcing most of the 1991 sanctions. Funnuily enough, others of "the international community" lost interest, which gutlessness is a condemnation of the bulk of these twats you worship in this chimera called "the international community," not America.

It was America who was being the good international citizen, not the slackers who dropped out. So maybe it's a good thing that America isn't the "international community." No point in the US also being a bunch of useless wankers.

DR

 

[gumboot]

Oh dear, not this old chestnut again. Let's be clear people, there is no international law that defines the circumstances of "legal warfare". The entire notion of an "illegal war" is a complete fabrication.

The closest we have is a prohibition on "Wars of Aggression", however there is no internationally established definition of what constitutes a "War of Aggression", making this prohibition completely meaningless.

As such, there is only one way, currently, in which a war can be determined to be illegal, and that is by the UNSC declaring it to be illegal under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Further, you cannot simply talk of the "Iraq War". There are two distinct stages to the Iraq War, and each has enormously different legal status.

Firstly, there is the invasion stage, which in my opinion should be considered a War of Aggression, and therefore illegal. However lacking a definition for a War of Aggression, such a legal finding cannot be made. I'd like to see an international treaty drafted up which defines such an act in specific terms.

Secondly, there is the occupation stage of the Iraq War, which constitutes the overwhelming majority of the duration of the conflict, the overwhelming majority of the casualties (on both sides) and draws the overwhelming majority of criticism.

The occupation of Iraq is mandated by the UN Security Council, and is not illegal.

Let that sink in, for a moment, please.

The occupation is a legal military operation sanctioned by the International Community. Indeed, the authorisation for this operation is itself international law.

 

[Travis]

From the perspective of a nation being invaded the invasion is always illegal regardless of any "UN Sanction." Besides the UN generally only has authority over those whom allow it to have authority over them. Proving that is part of the reason so many in the US want it to withdraw from the UN.