On March 20, 2003, the United States and Great Britain initiated an invasion of Iraq by means of missiles, aircraft and troops. It was an offence unauthorized by the U.N. Security Council. At the same time, it can be safely argued that Iraq was not at war with the United States or her allies nor was she was contemplating such an occurrence. The 2003 invasion of Iraq lasted from March 20 to May 1, 2003. It was led by the United States, reinforced by British forces and other comparatively smaller sources of assistance from Australia, Poland and Denmark. However, a number of other countries also jumped into the melee after the war had laid down its burden. It is a matter of thousand pities that multilateral diplomacy did not succeed in resolving the dispute. The war went in violation of the breach of the U.N. charter. The worlds’ most prestigious body was made irrelevant during the process of invasion. It was satirized by calling it to show some backbone to the problem. The objectives which the world powers wanted to gain from the war were considered so important that the calls of the U.N. for multilateral diplomacy and c regard for international law were absolutely ignored. They stood nowhere in the calculation of allies.
Nato became the first causality of the war. France and Germany along with even the civil societies of the invading countries were provoked to protest against the flagrant impingement of all established norms of dealing with such an issue. It became the scar on the forehead of the world community to see the day when legitimacy and involvement of the relevant bodies and institutions were not allowed by force. Modern diplomacy and international law got severe jerk and nearly uprooted. A very dangerous precedent has been set where every country if mightier may take a course of action as she thinks essential. It must be noticed here that United Nations resolution no 1483,(1) which removed sanctions and permitted America to consume the oil revenue and which some think providing legal cover was passed on May 22, 2003. It was after the demise of “major combat operations” on May 1, 2003. Hence, the view of legal cover is flawed.
Bush and Tony Blair were categorical in stressing that there was one sufficient justification of the war and that was Saddams’ having weapons of mass destruction including the most fatal nuclear weapons. Later, on Bush went on to add that America also wanted to see regime change in Iraq and liberate its masses from the shackles of dictatorship who gave them nothing but the miseries of life. The Bush administration advanced the argument that by failing to comply with the UN Security Council, Iraq was in violation of international law and she must be taught lessons. She had failed to disarm and submit to inspections. Iraq was contravening several UN resolutions that included resolutions no. 660, 678 and the US has come to aid the UN for legal compliance by a state that is flouting the Security Councils’ authority with an increased sense of impunity. However, the critics of the argument stress that the legal right to adopt the methodology of the execution of the resolutions lies with the Security Council. It is its exclusive privilege and it is not for the states to tell that they would do it alone and not with the agreement of the prestigious body of the world. One of the main issues of the invasion was whether United Nations would allow it. When the allies led by the United States knew that she would not, they decided to abandon it and went to war on their own in violation of all established norms and practices of the civilized world. Authorization could have required more weapons inspection. They were not being found and already causing embarrassment for the allies, hence it was no smooth sailing and this option was not in favour of allies. Many condemned the invasion and said that it is quite wrong to embark on an invasion without convincing humanity at large which was coming out in the open against the invasion.
The basics of international law have been derived from the United Nations charter, which is mandatory for all the signatories. UN charter is also an integral part of U.S. law as courts in America have ruled on many occasions that it is necessary for the government to comply with it. Article six treats all international treaties as part of the American laws. From Chapter VII of the U.N, it is obvious that the authorization of use of force is the sole privilege of the Security Council and no power can take upon her to use this power. “According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council, and not individual members, to determine how the body’s resolutions are to be implemented (W.H. Taft and T’F. Buchwald, The Future Implication Of War). There is one exception only in case when a state is left with no option after the eventuality of aggression on it and she is forced to resist that aggression. No such situation happened in the case of the Iraq war. Rather the allies by attacking Iraq became the aggressors. The right of self-defence has been delineated in the charter in article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” (U.N. Charter, Article 51).
The effects of the invasion on the future credibility and evolution of the U.N have been unfortunate. There has been consistent erosion of the trust in the multilateral system that particularly happened after the end of the cold war when the system of balance of power has been fatigued. However, the United Nations is endeavouring to come over the crisis by declaring it explicitly illegal. The rest of the world community has also been helpful in this regard. Even in America itself, voices have come to the fore against the legitimacy of the invasion. This sounds well for this world body on which the whole system of international law and peace stands. However, there must be a tangible basis of avoidance of such incidents in future. It is heartening to note that there is greater realization in the world than ever before that multilateral diplomacy should be strengthened to prevent the bloodshed. U.N. reform proposals are being debated and such loopholes as are exploited by the aggressors must be plugged.
References
Charter of the United, article 51.united nations home page. Nations. 2008. Web.
W.H. Taft And T’F. Buchwald, The Future Implication Of War The American Journal Of International Law, Vol. 97, No. 3 (2003), Pp. 553-563 Doi:10.2307/3109841.