UN and Iraq

[olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org]

Many issues have been raised by Shaun's post.

One is whether or not the invasion of Iraq was desirable.
Another is whether or not it was legal in terms of international law.
Yet another one is whether or not it would be desirable to modify 
international law to allow operation of this kind.

About these three issues, only the second one has a clear cut answer in 
my opinion. The invasion of Iraq was illegal. Only the Security Council 
has the authority to allow the use of force. In that case, it did not. 
The only other options is self-defense. As far as we knew then (and now 
incidentally), Iraq had no military plans against other countries nor 
weapons of mass destruction aimed at its neighbors. The case for 
self-defense being close, the invasion was and remains illegal, as the 
UN Secretary General reminded a few days ago.

Would it be desirable to modify the UN so that this kind of 
intervention becomes legal? Maybe, it depends on what modifications are 
proposed I guess. In Shaun's text, the veto system is pointed out as a 
big problem. I agree enthusiastically.

However, I would like to remind that France did not veto any resolution 
on Iraq. The United States (nor any member of the coalition) did not 
bother to suggest one. US officials at that time have argued that they 
couldn't see the point as France was going to veto it anyway. We will 
never know what would have happened, but my guess is France would never 
have had to veto it for the reason the resolution would have been 
rejected the standard way (more people voting against than in favor). 
This may have been different at another time (with more pro-war nations 
in the Security Council) but at the time of the vote, the diplomatic 
way did not look too good for the US. According to 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war 
only 4 countries out of the nine needed declared unambiguously their 
intention to vote in favor of a resolution calling for the use of 
force.

So veto has not been a problem in this particularly case. As a side 
note, I would like to remind that in the past 30 years (since 1976 to 
be accurate), US has used its veto right 67 times, UK 19 times, France 
12 times, USSR/Russia 9 times and China twice. If we are to consider a 
reform of the veto system, I dare say we can expect more opposition 
from the US than from any other country.

Last but not least, the more moral question of whether or not war in 
Iraq was desirable. My belief is that it is a good thing to get rid of 
a harsh dictator and mass-murderer, as was Saddam Hussein, but that 
international laws are the only thing we have to ensure peace, so that 
they should be followed. Indeed, if invading the country of a harsh 
dictator is ok, then Saddam was right to invade Kuwait in 1991, as 
Kuwait was far from being a democracy then (nor now by the way). Do we 
want a world like that? I personally don't. Besides, I am quite sure 
that if the member of the Security Council really wanted to overthrew 
dictators around the world, they could easily find regimes deemed 
horrible by human rights association that they nonetheless happily 
supports. Maybe cutting off their support until free elections were 
organized would be a better idea than direct invasion.

I feel a bit uncomfortable in defending in this post a position so 
close to the one defended by my country last year. I can assure you 
that I have no problem openly criticizing my country and its government 
on any issue, domestic on international. However, on that particularly 
point, I happen to agree with its official stand.

Regards,

Olivier