Historical Security Council: The Tensions Surrounding Iraq

Developed by: Pedro Henrique Souza Joo Victor Gonalo Luisa Fenizola 1

1- Letter to Delegates...p.2 2- History of the Committeep.3 2.1. United Nations History.....p.3 2.2. Security Council History...p.4 3. Concepts..p.7 3.1. Weapons of Mass Destruction..p.7 3.2. Terrorism.p.11 4- Iraqs History.p.13 4.1. Republic of Iraq (1958-1979)..p.13 4.2. The Saddam Hussein Governmentp.14 4.3. The First Gulf War (1980-1988).p.14 4.4. The Second Gulf War (1990-1991).p.15 4.5. Period of economic sanctions (1991-2000).p.16 4.6. Attacks of September 11.p.18 5. Iraq and the UN.p.19 5.1. United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM).p.20 5.2. United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC)...p.23 6. Latest Conflicts.. p.23 7. Topics that a Resolution must contain.p.25 8. Block Position...p.25 9. Bibliography. p.32 10. Annex ..........p.36 I Resolutions.p.36

1. Letter to Delegates
Dear Delegates, First of all we welcome and congratulate all of you for choosing the Security Council on such a delicate topic. In your hands you will find our study guide, which we hope and expect you to read. You will find in this guide the basic information concerning the theme to be discussed; it is very important that you understand that you must research more deeply in order not to have a superficial discussion and avoid misinterpretations of facts and your countrys policies. We have been working tirelessly for you to have an unparalleled experience at this conference and we hope that you enjoy a realistic and creative debate. We would like to thank and congratulate the Secretariat of the X MIRIN for its efficiency and support in the elaboration of this committee. We are thankful for all the support given and the trust that we have benefited from. We also would like to thank you, delegates, for believing in the committee and making it possible. We wish that the discussions are very fruitful and heated and that you will have a unique experience within the debates to come. From this moment on, we are in February, 2003. Hereby you are now a delegate of this utmost important committee and you must act like it.

Sincerely, Pedro Henrique Souza Joo Victor Gonalo Luisa Fenizola Chair of the United Nations Security Council

2. History of the Committee

2.1. The United Nations History

In 1919, after the First World War, was created the League of Nations under the Treaty of Versailles and grounded on the United States president, Woodrow Wilson, fourteen points, to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security. With the refusal of U.S. to join the League - its own creator since it was not approved by the U.S. Congress, and a number of other questions, among then the left of Italy and Japan from the League and the expulsion from Russia, the League was ended in 1945 after failing its objective proved by the Second World War (United Nations, s.d.). After its forerunner, the League of Nations, failed to prevent the Second World War, representatives of 50 countries reunited themselves in San Francisco (USA) in the United Nations Conference of International Organization, in April. After a series of reunions they founded, on 24 October 1945, the United Nations, they formulate its first Charter, and 51 countries ratified it, with the purpose:

To keep peace throughout the world; To develop friendly relations among nations; To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each others rights and freedoms; To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve theses goals (United Nations, s.d.).

Nowadays with 193 countries members and the power in its founding Charter, the UN can take action concerning a wide range of issues concerning the international community in regard to peace, security, human rights and the maintaining of the status quo. The organization consists of six main bodies, the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economical & Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the Secretariat and the International Court of Justice. The United Nations has six official languages, the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. The first meeting of the General Assembly took place in London in January 1946, and meetings were held in several places until the creation of the UN Headquarters in 4

New York in 1950 that remains the same until present days. Also have major offices in Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi. The eighth and current UN Secretary-General is the South Korean Ban Ki-Moon, who acts as a de facto spokesperson and leader of the UN. Nowadays, with globalization, the organization has increased its importance in the international framework as an international organization with the goal to maintain the order and mediate conflicts in order to maintain a continuous dialog among the nations (United Nations, s.d.).

2.2. Security Council

The Security Council is one of the main bodies of the United Nations and has the responsibility to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations. According to the UN Charter, all members agree to accept the Security Council decisions and resolutions, the Council has the power to take decisions in witch the Member States must follow, differently from other bodies that can only make recommendations. The Security Council is organized to function continuously, so there must be a representative of its members present in the UN Headquarters at all times. The Council consists of fifteen members, five of which are permanent members French Republic, Peoples Republic of China, Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America and ten non-permanent members, with a two-year term each. The non-permanent members are chosen by regional groups and elected by the General Assembly. The regional groups of Africa, Asia, America and Western Europe choose two members each and the Eastern Europe group chooses one member, alternated every two years with one from Asia or from Africa (UNSC, s.d.). This years non-permanent members are: Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Germany, Guinea, Mexico, Pakistan, Spain and Syrian Arab Republic. In the voting process of the substantive matters of the Security Council each member of the Council has the right to one vote. The substantial matters need 9 of the 15 affirmative votes, including the 5 permanent members. This rule is known as the great Power unanimity or simply the right of especial vote of the permanent members. It is also allowed that the delegations abstain themselves of the voting or declare themselves as non-participant of the voting process (UNSC, s.d.).

By contributing to the resolution of conflicts and helping to reduce tensions in problematic areas, the Security Council makes its importance in the highest agendas of international politics and other situations. This means that this Council is partially responsible for international security and, according to its Charter; it can legitimate military interventions or the dispatch of Peace Mission to different areas.

- The Security Council and the UN Charter For every Security Council delegate its essential to understand the main principles stated on the United Nations Charter for its conduct and possible measures. This section has the goal to highlight the chapters most used during Security Council meetings and its main points1. Chapter V2 is the one that settles de Security Council stating its composition, function and powers, and its procedures. Chapter VI3 of the Charter addresses the pacific settlement of conflicts, of which the Security Council shall take considerations regarding the situations brought to them and, if approved by the parties of the conflict, the Council can make recommendations to them, in order to seek a pacific settlement of the dispute. Usually, this kind of chapter is present in Peace Operations that occur with the consent of the parties involved. Most of the resolutions approved by this chapter are from observation of the situation, or intermediating conflicts. Chapter VII4 is also important and one of the most used in the resolutions prior to escalation of the tensions. It concerns actions with respect to threats to peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression. In this chapter the Security Council determines the cases when there are threats to the peace and to the international security. It is also by the chapter VII that the Security Council allows itself to take all the necessary measures (including the use of force) to maintain or restore international peace and security, not depending of the consent of the parties involved in the conflict.

The chair recommends that all delegates read the United Nations Charter. It can be found at <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml>. 2 Available at: <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml>. 3 Available at: <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter6.shtml>. 4 Available at: <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml>.

Resolutions approved through the Chapter VII can have many different characteristics and goals, such as for example, the Resolution 986 (1995) that created the Oil-for-Food Program that allowed Iraq to sell oil in the market in exchange of food; the United Nation Transitional Administration in East Timor, among other missions and programs were also approved through this chapter. Chapter VIII5 is another chapter that is commonly referred to in the procedures of the Council, this section of the Charter deals with regional arrangements. It predicts the participation of regional arrangements in the maintenance of international peace and security, provided that such actions are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. An example of mission approved through resolutions based on this chapter is the creation of the UNOSOM (United Nations Operation in Somalia), where the Security Council welcomes the participation of regional African organizations to solve the situation;

Functions and Powers of the Security Council delegates

DOs - As set by the Charter, the Functions and Powers of the Security Council are: to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations; to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction; to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement; to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments; to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken; to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression; to take military action against an aggressor; to recommend the admission of new Members (United Nations, s.d. b). DONTs - Its of most importance to remember that you are a diplomatic representative of your country to the UN, so you do not have the make any decision that its prerogative of the Head of State, such as to declare war against another; sign or revoke treaties (as delegate you can only sign the Security Council documents - such as the resolution), for any other decision that are prerogative of the Head of State you must

Available at: < http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter8.shtml >.

have its permission (you can have so by sending them a letter through the Chair); also its not up to you to decide the exact number and amount of resources to be applied in a mission, or the types of products and goods to be sent.

3. Concepts
3.1. Weapons of Mass Destruction

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) are those of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear composition that are able to cause large-scale damage to natural and man-made structures, in addition to causing countless simultaneous deaths in one single strike and harming an also elevated number of human lives. In part because those weapons are easily fragmented and spread almost as easily, it is almost impossible to control its use and to stop it from reaching civilians. Its use is, therefore, object of deep concern and dispute and its limits are far more political than technical. The use of this kind of weapons, for once, is disrespectful to the laws on human rights defined in the Geneva Conventions, a series of conventions between 1864 and 19496.7 These are the body of international law that regulates the conduct of armed conflict and seeks to limit its effects. They specifically protect people who are not taking part in the hostilities civilians, health workers and aid workers and those who are no longer participating in the hostilities, such as wounded, sick and shipwrecked soldiers and prisoners of war (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2010). The Conventions and their Protocols call for measures to be taken to prevent or put an end to all breaches. The total number of States that ratified is 194, making the Geneva Conventions universally applicable. The Geneva Conventions, however, are concerned with people in war. There are more specific treaties that deal with weaponry, such as the Hague Conventions 8 and the Geneva Protocol. The Hague Conventions were two international treaties negotiated in 1899 and 1907, both concerning war crimes and the laws of war. The first one, particularly, focused on disarmament issues, in a way to forbid chemical warfare. The second one also called Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare was considered
6 7

Acess in: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp Examples: Convetion III: Relative to the Treatment of PRisioners of War, august 12, 1949 and Convention IV, Relative to the protection of Civilian Persons in times of War, august, 12, 1949 8 Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp

an addition to the first and focused on the ban of chemical and also biological warfare. Many countries ratified, although with reservations, including Iraq and the US. Iraq said that it would on condition that the Iraq government shall be bound by the provisions of the Protocol only towards those States which have both signed and ratified it or have acceded thereto, and that it shall not be bound by the Protocol towards any State at enmity with Iraq whose armed forces, or the forces of whose allies, do not respect the provisions of the Protocol and that it would cease to be binding in regards to any enemy state which does not observe the prohibitions of the protocol and Binding only with regards to states who have ratified or acceded to the protocol (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2007). Meanwhile, the US said it would cease to be binding as to the use of chemical weapons in regards to any enemy state which does not observe the prohibitions of the protocol (Ibid). Many other states shared these reservations and some withdrew during the 90s. The Geneva Protocol of 1925, a Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, states that the use of such weapons has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world and intends to make this prohibition universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations (UN , s.d.). These efforts are supported by a number of key UN instruments. The General Assembly and the Security Council address the issues of disarmament continuously. One of the first attempts of limiting Cold Wars arm race was the Limited Nuclear Test Ban (LNTB), led by the United Kingdom, United States and the URSS. It forbids detonations of nuclear weapons, including for testing purposes, if not underground. It was not signed or ratified by China, France or North Korea. Another treaty, the Outer Space treaty, also an initiative of the same three countries in 1967, is concerned with space law and the banning of placing WMDs (but not conventional weapons) in orbit of Earth or in any celestial body. The most important of treaties on nuclear weapons is, undoubtedly, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (UNITED NATIONS, 1968), the most comprehensive of all multilateral disarmament treaties, which became effective in 1970. It is based on three pillars: the main one is non-proliferation, that is, to prevent the spread of nuclear armament; the second is cooperation for the broadening of access to nuclear power for peaceful uses, such as nuclear energy; third and last one is 9

disarmament. It is argued that, although it is present in the treaty, the last one is much neglected. Proliferation itself needs some further light: it is not clear whether it is vertical (the accumulation of material by each nation) or horizontal (the increase in the number of countries with access to such technology) proliferation. The Biological Weapons Convention started operating in 1975 and the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997. The Assembly also held special sessions on disarmament in 1978 and 1988. Some UN agencies are dedicated exclusively to disarmament; among them is the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference successfully negotiated the Convention on Chemical Weapons Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban. Since the United Nations was created, the goals of multilateral disarmament and arms constraint were considered central to the maintenance of international peace and security. The difference between arms control and disarmament is that the first one seeks to limit the amount, the place and the moment of deployment, while allowing mutually controlled armament, and the second one means the giving up of a specific kind of weapon. Arms control is meant to break the security dilemma it aims at mutual security between partners and overall stability, it requires transparency, equality and monitoring and it may result in cost reduction and damage limitation. Arms control is typically exercised through the use of diplomacy which seeks to impose such limitations upon consenting participants through international treaties and agreements, although it may also comprise efforts by a nation or group of nations to enforce limitations upon a non-consenting country. Therefore, it relies on the continued desire of the participants to abide by the terms to remain effective. The problem of arms control is a complex and multi-faceted one. It is technological as far as there is dispute over scientific hegemony; no country wants to be left behind in this race. It is necessary to control the research, the production, the acquisition and the employment of weapons. Not to mention the problem of dual-use technology: the boundary between a legitimate and an illegal use of the same resource may be very thin. Another issue is how to assess what is a defensive what is an offensive weapon and how to punish violations sanctions tend to be advocated against violators primarily by their natural political enemies, while violations are often ignored or given only token measures by their political allies. Sometimes nations may remain in a treaty while seeking to break its limits as opposed to simply withdrawing from it. This is because to openly defy an agreement, even by withdrawal, often is seen in a bad light politically and can carry diplomatic 10

repercussions. Additionally, if one remains in an agreement, competitors who are also participatory may be held to the limitations of the terms, while withdrawal releases your opponents to make the same developments you are making, limiting the advantage of that development. Finally, there is the problem of verification, that is, of determining whether or not a nation is complying with the terms of the agreement: questions such as who should monitor, why a country should allow monitoring and how much cooperation and release of information is required have no easy answers. This often involves as much negotiation as the terms themselves, and in some cases lead to the breakdown of treaty negotiations. The case between U.S. and Iraq dates back to the 1990s: the end of the Cold War reduced U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent, causing it to shift its focus to disarmament. With the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and 1991 Gulf War, Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs became a particular concern of the first Bush Administration. After the 11 September 2001 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, an increased fear of non-conventional weapons and asymmetrical warfare took hold of the United States and other Western powers. This fear reached a crescendo with the 2002 Iraq disarmament crisis and the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq could motivate or at least justify an intervention in the near future. In late February 2003, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson to investigate dubious claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium concentrates from Niger. Wilson returned and informed the CIA that sales of these concentrates to Iraq were "unequivocally wrong" (KRISTOF, 2003). However, the Bush administration continued to mention purchases of uranium as justification for military action, especially in his speech in 2003, when President Bush repeated the claim, citing British intelligence in the famous 16-word speech. These weapons, according to many world leaders, represented a global threat (BLAIR, 2004). Bush argued that the United States could not wait until the threat of Iraq leader Saddam Hussein became imminent. To justify a potential war, some U.S. officials also claim that there are signs of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Yet no evidence was found of any significant connection to Al Qaeda or weapons of mass destruction until the present day.

3.2. Terrorism 11

Its of most importance to highlight that the United Nations has no official definition for the term Terrorism. However, its commonly referred to since 2001 with the 09/11 attacks. Since theres no official definition accorded to what terrorism is, one of the main issues is to differentiate, to define, when a threat is of terrorist nature or when its from another source, which sometimes makes it impossible to achieve an effective joint action from the International Society (Diniz, 2004). In this section it will be presented a few different concepts of the term. According scholars like Booth & Dunne, terrorism is a method of political action marked by the use of violence against civilians and/or the civil infra-structure with the goal to induce the behavior of the population, inflict damage or for purposes of revenge that can be exercised by individuals or organizations, the terrorism is a tactical act, not an ideology since the terror is limited by its method, not by its reasons (Booth & Dune, 2002). However, on the other hand, we can also find definitions like of the Jessica Sterns, in which she approaches terrorism as more closely to an ideology where the terrorist uses violence to obtain dramatic effects to provoke fear and chaos among the

population, which is sometimes more important than physical injuries and effects. According to Stern this random deliberation of terror is what differ the terrorism from common acts of violence (Stern, 2001). Some questions to consider when studying terrorism are the problem of generalization and homogenization of types of person, group or actions and its focus and motives. Among these questions there is the discussion of whether the terrorism is a tactic to be used or if an organization can be characterized as terrorist and how the concept is used by the States. According to Colin Gray, terrorism consists in the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear to use or threaten to use violence with political purpose (Gray, 2007, p.249). Terrorism can occur through the action of different groups, together for political, religious, ethnic purposes having a specific target or not. Besides it can also occur through action of the State itself. The concern of terrorist arose by the fact that no State is fully prepare to defend it and to counter the terrorist initiatives. This has shown as a threat to the whole human kind for its unpredictability instituting a fear and

12

uncertainty among men due the lack of visibility and identification of who is the real enemy9. Another important issue to highlight is that there are a lot of divergences, among States, regarding the definition of the term, what makes the work in the United Nations really toilsome. Despite not having a clear definition of the term, most of the UN resolutions regarding the topic strongly condemn terrorist acts, making it a priority on the agenda to be solved. Since the beginning of the 1990s10 the Security Council has been addressing meetings to discuss terrorism and posing anti-terrorist sanctions, such as the case of Libya and Sudan passing resolutions approved through chapter VII of the UN Charter. After that, another mark on the UN History on the terrorism discussions was the resolution 1373 (2001) that created the UN Counter Terrorism Committee in order to prevent terrorist acts across the world, created after the 9/11 attack to the United States. In the context of the Iraq framework, many scholars says that the Iraq has repeatedly employed terrorist as an element of its Foreign Policy, supporting so-called terrorist organizations as the May 15 Organization11 and the Abu Nidal Organization, using it as logistical support (base training and providing supplies, etc) (Byman, 2003). Rumors and intelligence reports from different countries, such as the United States, says that in the Kuwait war Iraq has made use of terrorist operations. According to the Council on Foreign Relations12 (2005), the Saddam Hussein regime supported groups such as the Mujahadeen-e-khalq
13

and the PKK (Kurdistan

Workers` Pary), but not further information are known. Being said that, the current situation in Iraq is posed by many alongside with the War on Terror started in September 11, by the US and joined by many countries, due to past dubious and nonconfirmed relations among the Iraqi government and organizations, called by many as terrorist organizations; the international perception of the country`s situations remains very cautious on the past decade.

As for example in conventional wars, it is clearly set that the enemy is certain State and the actions necessary to defeat it and its norms. In case of a non-state actor, it is much more unpredictable of who the enemy is and when it is defeated. 10 The first time that the Security Council brought the topic of terrorism to discussion was on the Lockerbie attempt, when a plane flying from London to New York was taken down in Scotland. 11 Palestinian rebel group known for bombing airplanes. 12 Independent and nonpartisan membership organization and think thank. 13 Resistance group on Iran listed by the US as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO)

13

4. Iraqs History
4.1. Republic of Iraq (1958-1979) From a Pro-Western Arab Union (AU), made possible through an Alliance between Iraq and Jordan, to the bloody palatial coups by the late sixties, contemporary Iraqi historys one of political tensions, ethnical instability from an almost constant Kurdish state-of-rebellion and war with Its neighbors. More important to our analysis, however, are the most recent years, from 1971s onward, that is, from the early days of the Baath Party regime, considering Saddams rise to power in 1979, and the most recent tensions related to Iraqs supposed possession of nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction. The first ten years of Saddams regime were marked by a close relationship with the Soviet Union, communist elements from within Iraqi society in alliance with the Baathist Party, the one led by Saddam. Not only did the regime nationalize the oil companies in operation, it also discovered large sums of the black gold around Bagdad. Its also worthy to note the rise of the oil prices in the international marke t, during the first and second oil crises. (Fattah & Caso, 2009) The relationship with its neighbors were uncertain: at the same time it had cordial relations with Syria, in special with both countries strong opposition to the Israeli State, Iraq had tensions with Jordan and its actions in order to curb the Palestinian opposition movements terrorism, depending on the source being read. At the same time, Iraq had trouble with Iran, who were accused of fomenting Kurdish rebellion in northern Iraq (Bowen, 2010 ; Chanaa, 2007)

4.2. The First Gulf War (1980-1988) The overthrow of the Iranian Shah Reza Pahlavi by the fundamentalist revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini took not only Saddam, but the world as a whole, by surprise. Not only ideological discrepancies but with strategic thinking behind, that is, to retake control of the Shatt Al-Arab waterway a river formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates which empties into the Persian Gulf, Iraqs launched an offensive against Iran on September 22th, 1980. The war took its toll on both countries population, lasting eight years. If Iraq took the initiative, by 1986 Iran not only retook its territory but managed to occupy, albeit temporarily, the Al-Faw peninsula, known for its oil productivity capacity and for being where Shatt Al-Arab met the sea and the port of Basra. For our Committee, its of

14

extreme relevance the link between this

war and

Iraqs capabilities on

chemical/biological warfare, as well as its nuclear program. If the latter began as early as 1960, with substantial help from the USSR, by 1981, on the 7th of july, it took a severe setback by the destruction of a nuclear reactor near Baghdad by Israelis air forces, which was justified by the latter as a defensive measure against the threat Israel would suffer from a nuclearized Iraq (National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book, 2004). The question of Saddams nuclear capabilities is still, as of the date of our committee, rather rumpus. On Iraqs chemical and biological warfare capabili ties, those have been largely proven existent, used and condemned by the International Society: not only against Iranian soldiers, but also, and almost exclusively it could be added, against the Kurdish population which dwells mostly by the north of the country. On the 16th of March, 1988, for instance, the Kurdish town of Halabdscha was bombed with poison gas. In the same year by September, more attacks followed, with one special episode worth of specific note: the Massacre of Halabja, also known as Bloody Friday, in which chemical weapons were used against the Kurdish town of Halabja, killing between 3,500 and 5,000 people, injuring over 7,000 others, mostly civilians (Human Rights Watch, 2006).

4.3. The Second Gulf War (1990-1991) The Iran-Iraq war officially ended on the 20th august, 1988. It took its toll on the Iraqi population: officially 250,000 dead. It has been argued that it was one of the main reasons for the Second Gulf War, that is, the Invasion of Kuwait by Saddams Iraq: the Iran-Iraq war left the latter highly indebted to various foreign countries, being Kuwait one of the biggest creditors for the Iraqi war effort. That said, the invasion and annexation of Kuwait could be considered some kind of Silver Bullet for Iraq, that is, one straight forward solution to the problem of Iraqs debts. On terms of justification, Baghdad claimed reabsorption of the territory, once a Brittish-influenced if not controlled region to its ancestral land, that is, Iraq. Moreover, Kuwait would represent an easy and efficient outlet to the sea, one of the main goals of the Iran-Iraq war: not only that, it would represent an Iraqi control over Kuwaits oil production, largely sold in subsided prices to the United States. On the 2nd of August, 1990, the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait, facing, in turn, a strong diplomatic response from the international community for instance, the United States has set a 5month withdraw as a deadline before armed reaction from the international community. 15

Such a lengthy time-period was needed for preparatory measures, either training of troops or deals with neighboring countries for the construction of military facilities closer to the front, to be taken by the International Coalition that pledged to act in the defense of Kuwait and International Law. (KLEIN. January 2003). In January, five thousand soldiers from thirteen countries, lead by the US and NATO landed on Kuwait, expelling with relative ease the Iraqi army back to its pre-war borders. By late February, Iraq had already capitulated. One of the most interesting decisions taken once the guns fell silent was the maintenance of Saddams regime, which could be explained, amongst other reasons, by the limited nature of the war goals that is, to free Kuwait and strategic reasons concerning the balance of power in the Middle East, for it could be said that Iraq was one of the countries capable of limiting Irans and other neighboring countries scope of action (LIND, November 26, 2007) Once a peace agreement was issued, the Iraqi regime turned back to target its minorities of Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north, both accused of raising rebel movements against the status quo regime: that lead to the stablishment of a no-fly zone in northern and southern Iraq, both guaranteed and imposed through an U.N. resolution and the American, british and French military. (IBID). Iraq formally recognized Kuwaits sovereignty by 1994. 4.4. Period of Economic Sanctions (1991-2000) On August 6, 1990 the Security Council of the United Nations adopted Resolution 661, which imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, including the trade embargo, excluding medical supplies, food and other items of humanitarian necessity, to be determined by the Security Council Sanctions Committee. Iraq refused to cooperate with the UN disarmament tax, even after all findings and reprisals suffered by the use of chemical weapons during the Gulf wars, especially in containing Kurdish revolts. (Erikson; Stabiano; Wallensteen, 2005). In other words, despite losing the war, the actions taken by the government in the post-gulf war period was received with quite the alarm and suspicion world-wide about Iraqs capabilities. Iraq was authorized, under the UN program Oil-for-Food (Resolution 986), to export $5.2 billion of oil every six months (ie 10.4 billion dollars per year) so that the country would be able to guarantee the livelihood of its population. Despite the program, UN estimates that about one million Iraqi children died during the embargo, due to malnutrition and lack of medicines (ibid). Despite that, Saddams regime was quite 16

unshaken from the crisis, as shown in the, supposedly free, elections held in 1995. By spring 1996, the embargo was put to an end, although it did not meant a relief of the international communitys suspicions: by the next year, for instance, Britain threated the use of force if Iraq did not comply with the entry and inspections of UNs IAEA (Baram; Post, s.d.) The relationship between Iraq and UNs security council was, to say the least, controversial: the latter suffered great pressure from the former in the question surrounding Iraqs disarmament, pressure for the acceptance of UNs inspectors of the pace of disarmament and the existence of its supposed nuclear arsenal (Even though the Nuclear issue was more at hand in the early 2000s than in the 90s), backed by threats of continued embargo on Iraqs oil, and the resistance from the latter. (Ibid) . With the imposition of the embargo, the nation of Saddam Hussein lived a deep internal crisis, including economic, yet Saddam regime remained unshaken. In supposedly free elections, held in 1995, the people opted to stay in power of Saddam Hussein. In the spring of 1996, the UN put an end to the embargo that weighed on Iraq oil. In October 1997, Britain threatened to use force if Iraq did not allow the entry of a UN team in the country (Ibid.). There was a period of delicate balance in the relationship, but in September 1998, the Security Council voted unanimously on a resolution maintaining sanctions against Iraq until Baghdad back to cooperate with inspectors disarmament. Given the appeal of China, France and Russia, the Council signaled the possibility of resuming cooperation, which provided for a joint examination of the relationship of Iraq to the UN. (Ibid.) After the letter delivered to the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, the deputy prime minister of Iraq, Aziz Tarif, was suspended by U.S. President Bill Clinton military intervention in Iraq. In the letter, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein decided finally returning to cooperate with the disarmament of the country, allowing the return of inspectors from the UN Special Commission. In December 1998, the end of a series of inspections to test fundamental cooperation from Iraq, two teams of inspectors committee members in charge of disarming Iraq left Baghdad. The chief inspector, Richard Butler, said he was prevented from entering some buildings in Baghdad, which held, in its report, "a serious fact." A few days later, started retaliatory military operation against Iraq, carried out over four days by the forces of the United States and Great Britain (Operation Desert Fox), motivated by the negative of the Iraq president, 17

Saddam Hussein, to collaborate with the UN disarmament inspectors. A disarmament commission (UNMOVIC) was created by the UN Security Council in December 1999. On January 17, 2000, Kofi Annan, appointed Rolf Ekeus to head the commission. Iraq maintained its refusal to cooperate with UNMOVIC. (ERIKSON; STABIANO; WALLENSTEEN, 2005). 4.5 The attacks of September 11th On the morning of September 11th 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger aircraft in the United States. Two of the hijacked planes crashed intentionally into the World Trade Center, the Twin Towers in New York, while another one crashed into the Pentagon and the last one crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after passengers on the plane trying to regain control of it (Jeffrey, 2008) This episode led to the death of nearly three thousand people and became a remarkable episode in the history of the United States of America, because for the first time the country was attacked in the continent, The attacks of September 11 caused a meaningful change in George W. Bushs foreign policy; the combination of all the principles adopted in this context were called the "Bush Doctrine". One of its starting points was that the United States would treat states that harbored or supported terrorists groups as terrorists themselves. This assumption was employed to justify the invasion of Afghanistan, for instance. (YOO, 2001). Other aspects comprehended by this Doctrine were preventive war and the preservation of democracy in the world, especially in the Middle East. The second one, particularly, was crucial for the battle against terrorism and for legitimizing the use of military force, even unilaterally. Some of these principles were formally presented in a National Security Council report, "The National Security Strategy of the United States" in 2002. (Ibid.) Still according to the new doctrine, the pursue of presumed world peace and security made the United States list the three most dangerous states, who should be declared universal enemies for developing WMDs: Iran, Iraq and North Korea Then, Cuba, Libya and Syria were added to this list, known as "Axis of Evil". The identification and creation of enemies were important for the United States because it served as justification to continue investing heavily in the sector of defense and war industry - this industry is extremely lucrative for the U.S. (CLAPPER, 2013). It is also worthy to note 18

that one of the main arguments of the Bush administration against Saddams Iraq was the danger of letting small threats of today to grow and become a huge threat tomorrow, as it was with the Terrorism case: in simple words, the preventive war doctrine could be summed up to act before it was too late, before Iraq could fast-forward its supposed nuclear program.

5. Iraq and the UN

Due to the extreme density of the subject, a more profound analysis of the role of the UN in the region is required to understand the present events in Iraq, starting with the main resolutions concerned and then following with an analysis of the missions established in the country. Even after the end of the First Gulf War in 1991, the Security Council has been continuously meeting to discuss the situation in Iraq and taking actions regarding it. In October 1991, Resolution 715 was passed. Acting under chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and alongside with a letter presented by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Javier Prez de Cullar, it approved plans for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to carry out inspections in the Iraqi territory and put the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), created months before, as a subsidiary body of the Security Council, in order to address the concern of the international community and its urge for the monitoring of potential WMDs in Iraqi possession. In the same resolution that UNSCOM was created, according to resolution 687, a series of economic sanctions and embargo were imposed on Iraq, condemned in 1994 by resolution 949 for its ongoing military buildup on Kuwaits borders, in order to force the withdrawal of WMDs from Kuwaits territory. It was also remarkably stated that Iraq should assure the Council that it would not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization to act under those principles in its territory. As the Iraqi government sustained its position and did not give up control over weapons of mass destruction of various kinds, the Security Council approved resolution 1060 in 1996, demanding Iraq to co-operate with the inspections in its territory. The country had not been allowing the inspections, which was against the precepts of the United Nations Charter. 19

In 1999, after recalling several previous resolutions and facing constant obstruction by the Iraqi government on the inspections of its nuclear site and facilities, the Security Council approved with abstentions from China, Russia, France and Malaysia resolution 1284, creating UNMOVIC, commission that should undertake the responsibilities of UNSCOM; it also stated that Iraq should co-operate in the repatriation process of Kuwait and other nationals in Iraq and declared temporarily suspended the blockade and economic sanctions, mostly of petroleum, in accordance with the Oil-for-Food Program created in 1995. The lifting should follow accordingly to IAEA reports and if those were not fully operational in the country, the imports and exports would be once again suspended. Regarding the Iraq situation, one of the most important resolutions on the topic was approved in 2002. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council and [r]ecalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

5.1. United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM)

In 1991 the United Nations set up the above mentioned UNSCOM to ensure that the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of the WMDs and ballistic missiles in Iraqs possession would be carried out. Despite its technical success, a high price was paid by ordinary Iraqi citizens. Economic sanctions aiming demilitarization were imposed on Iraq due to its lack of commitment to the Security Council resolution 687 and were not lifted even after the collapse of UNSCOM. When the sanctions were held responsible for the shortage of food and medical supplies in Iraq, not the national government for not complying but the UN for imposing was blamed and UNSCOM and its supporting states started to be seen with suspicious eyes (LEWIS, 2001). The continuing sanctions split the opinions of the permanent five members of the Security Council. Resolution 986 even created, in 1995, the Oil-for-Food programme, as a temporary measure until the fulfillment of the other resolutions, allowing the country to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs (UNITED NATIONS, s.d. c). After a seven-year work, discrepancies remained between the actual amount and existence of missiles observed and Iraq's declarations, Iraq failed to submit some of the 20

requested reports on their activities and some dual-use biological and chemical equipment which Iraq had not declared to the Commission was found. Besides, contrary to the requirement that destruction be conducted under international supervision, Iraq undertook extensive, unilateral and secret destruction of large quantities of proscribed weapons and items; it also pursued a practice of concealment of proscribed items, including weapons, and a cover up of its activities in contravention of Council resolutions. Efforts to frustrate and harass the inspection team were made and requests for sample analysis refused. Such concerted obstructions naturally raise the question of why Iraq has carried out these activities (UNITED NATIONS, 1999a). In response to the Commission's requests for relevant documents, Iraq has repeatedly claimed that they no longer exist or cannot be located, a claim which often has been shown to be false, either because inspection activities have in fact located precisely such documents or because Iraq has reversed its stated position and then produced relevant documents. On certain other occasions, Iraq has not claimed that documents sought by the Commission do not exist but has stated instead that they are not relevant to the Commission. The judgment of relevance of any given document is for the Commission, not Iraq, to make, as has been recognized by the Security Council (UNITED NATIONS, 1999a). Documents that came to light in 1995 and subsequent disclosures by Iraq indicated that, during the first four years of its activities, the Commission had been very substantially misled by Iraq both in terms of its understanding of Iraqs proscribed weapons programs and the continuation of prohibited activities, even under the Commissions monitoring (UNITED NATIONS, 1999a). In addition to that, the Commission has little or no confidence in the accounting for proscribed items for which physical evidence is lacking or inconclusive, documentation is sparse or nonexistent, and coherence and consistency is lacking. Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed; that no biological weapons (BW) munitions or weapons remain in Iraq; and that a BW capability does not exist in Iraq. On the other hand, apparently all known indigenous facilities capable of production of amounts of uranium useful to a reconstituted nuclear program have been destroyed along with their principal equipment; all known procured uranium compounds are in the custody of the IAEA and all known facilities for the industrialscale production of pure uranium compounds suitable for fuel fabrication or isotopic enrichment have been destroyed, along with their principal equipment. All known dual21

use equipment used in the research and development of enrichment technologies is subjected to ongoing monitoring and verification; IAEA inspections have revealed no indications that Iraq's plans for an indigenous plutonium production reactor proceeded beyond a feasibility study. The problem is that such rests on an acceptance of Iraqs basic declarations, the accuracy of the declared has not always been verified. While succeeding in its major aim material and technology necessary to the WMD development program were destroyed and new equipment denied by supplier countries (LEWIS, 2001) the action did not mean that Iraq would be unable to re-open its program for good. In addition to that, the commission was accused of spying for the United States. After the US and the United Kingdom bombed Iraq in Operation Desert Fox, in 1998, due to its non-compliance, the country refused to cooperate with UNSCOM at all and no inspections have occurred since then, demoralizing the Security Council and opening space for the potential reestablishment of the WMD program. While no monitoring work could be done, the Commission continued to carry out as much of its mandate as possible, focusing on activities that would facilitate the resumption (UNITED NATIONS, 1999b) of its assigned tasks. The last official report before the suppression of the commission states inconclusively that UNSCOM was not yet able to give the Security Council the assurances that it requires with respect to the final disposition of Iraq's proscribed weapons programs and their possible reconstitution (UNITED NATIONS, 1999b).

5.2. United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC)

In response to the suspension of UNSCOM inspections, the U.N. established in 1999 a panel headed by Ambassador Celso Amorin of Brazil to report on disarmament and the ongoing monitoring and verification issues. The resolution adopted at the end of the panel (Resolution 1284) created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, UNMOVIC, and reaffirmed UNs rights to unconditional and unrestricted access to sites and facilities in Iraq. Those who were employed by the Commission were paid for by Iraqs oil sales through an escrow account, so as to address the criticism made to UNSCOM that government-paid staff would be loyal to the interests of their countries rather than to the U.N.s ones. 22

Iraqs recurring attempts to detain inspections raised suspicion regarding whether it had something to hide, especially because its cooperation would have eventually meant the lifting of the before mentioned economic sanctions. This speculation is corroborated by the fact that on several occasions inspectors were denied access to sites or local personnel were observed to be burning or otherwise discarding documents and materials (Lewis, 2001; United Nations, 1999).

6. Latest Conflicts
According to the journalist Sidney Blumenthal, September 18, 2002, George Tenet briefed Bush that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Blumenthal says Bush devalued this information from the secret circle of Saddam, which was approved by two senior officials of the CIA, and that turned out totally true. (BLUMENTHAL, 2007.) At the same time, the Bush administration said attempts by Iraq to acquire thousands of aluminum tubes, of high strength, pointed to a clandestine program to enrich uranium to make nuclear bombs. This view was supported by the CIA, but was challenged by the Department of Energy (DOE), which was significant because the DOE was the only American state department with expertise in gas centrifuges and nuclear weapons programs against this idea. (BARSTOW;. J. BROAD; GERTH, 2004.) In October 2002, a few days before the vote in the U.S. Senate on the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of North American Armed Forces against Iraq, was told to about 75 senators that Saddam Hussein had the means of attacking the coast eastern U.S. with biological or chemical weapons by unmanned drones. Colin Powell also suggested in his reporting to the Security Council that they were ready to be launched against the U.S.. At that time there was a vigorous dispute between the intelligence services about whether the CIA's conclusions about the drones were correct. The United States Air Force, the agency most familiar with these devices, the Center for Information and Research of the State Department and the Defense Intelligence Agency denied that Iraq possessed any offensive capability of this kind, saying that the few drones that Iraq possessed were designed and intended only to surveillance. (KATZMAN, 2002.)

23

Most of the Information Services Committee agreed on this last point. In fact, the Iraqi fleet of unmanned aircraft never entered combat and consisted of a handful of training equipment of Czech origin, with cameras, but no offensive capability. Despite this controversy, the Senate voted and approved the Joint Resolution on 11 October 2002, giving the Bush administration the legal basis for the invasion. (Ibid.) January 28, 2003, at his State of Union speech, Bush declared: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In the same month, the United States, Britain and Spain proposed the so-called "Resolution 18" to give Iraq a deadline to comply with previous resolutions and would be enforced by the threat of military action. This resolution was subsequently withdrawn due to lack of support in the Security Council of the United Nations. In particular France and Germany, NATO members and Russia were opposed to military intervention in Iraq because of the high risk to the security of the international community and defended disarmament through diplomacy. (AMORIM, 2006.) In February 14th, Dr. Hans Blinx, executive chairman of UNMOVIC, after meeting with the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei, briefed the Security Council on the latest reports of the Mission, where he stated that the Iraqis were more proactive in their cooperation, the UNMOVIC regional office in Mosul has started to fully operate and inspections had been going successfully, where All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. (Blix, 2003), however those policies of cooperation should contain more than just access to the sites, the Iraqi government must actively show its efforts to resolve the existing questions of disarmament and other issues on the region.

7. Topics that a resolution must contain

Decisions taken in the Security Council will be made official through a draft resolution or, if approved, a resolution. To be approved, this resolution requires at least nine votes of the board members and may not have any veto of the five permanent

24

members. This document defines the guidelines for the actions of the Security Council on the issue. The resolution must answer the following questions: How the Security Council should act before the latest reports from UNSCOM and UNMOVIC? How the Security Council should act before the situation in Iraq? How the question regarding terrorism must be dealt in Iraq? What measures must be taken regarding the presence, or not, of WMDs in the region? Should the Security Council take any preventive measure to avoid conflict and preserve the peace and stability? How the Security Council will ensure that previous resolutions are respected and implemented? Should a military intervention take place in Iraq? To what extent and goals? What broader implications would an invasion have for Iraq and the Middle East?

8. Block Position
Angola The Republic of Angola shares the international communitys position that the Government of Iraq must disarm by providing immediate and unconditional access to sites and information relevant to disarmament, and to take a more proactive role in the destruction and documentation of banned weapons to assure the international community that the Iraq is not a threat to global peace and security, creating a peaceful disarmament. Alongside with regional organizations such as the African Union and the League of Arab States, the Angolan Government expresses its deep political and economic and humanitarian concerns regarding the possibility of use of force in the region. The Security Council must seek for the disarmament of WMDs on Iraq within all possible diplomatic and peaceful means to achieve it.

Bulgaria

25

The Republic of Bulgaria believes that the Iraqi insurance in providing access to its site to the UNMOVIC does not show enough commitment by the Republic of Iraq, and with that has shown only substantive cooperation, not complying with the major objective of resolution 1441 (2002) which is the disarmament of the country, that has not been achieved yet. Once again, the Bulgarian Government do not consider that enough has been done without any breakthrough regarding the quantities of chemical and biological weapons that are considered to being missing, especially those regarding to anthrax and VX gas. The government of Bulgaria support the presence of American and British troops in order to make credible the resolution 1441 (2002) and other relevant Security Council resolutions. The government believes that The Iraqi regime alone will be responsible for the consequences if it continues to flout the will of the international community and does not take this last opportunity,14 and defends the increase of pressure on Iraq and supports the position of the United States, United Kingdom and Spain, and claim for an unity of the Council on this decision.

Cameroon

The Government of Cameroon sees the latest reports of the UNMOVIC as productive, but there is still a long way to the disarmament of Iraq. Cameroon believes that the Iraqi government has not been completely accretive of resolution 1441 (2002) and claim for more cooperation. Cameroon is against war in Iraq or elsewhere but, as a member of the Security Council, it has the responsibility and the duty to ensure, along with other members, that States fully implement the decisions taken by it. The Republic of Cameroon support the continuation of inspections and see as a major problem of the current situation the need to induce the Iraqi authorities to cooperate actively.

Chile

The Government of Chile claims for an unity of the Security Council on this matter and thinks that the cooperation by part of Iraq is not in its full state as it has been set by the resolution 1441 (2002), and despite some progress, the general goal hasnt been

14

Declaration of the European Council on 17 February 2003, Brussels.

26

achieved yet. The Republic of Chile has been following a foreign policy defending multilateralism and seeks a solution respecting the International Law and with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter emphasizing collective measures. The Chilean government supports rigorous inspections in Iraq but always reiterating Chiles vocation to peace.

French Republic

The French government, following the international public opinion, made clear he would not allow the adoption of any resolution authorizing the automatic use of force. On 20 January 2003 the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin declared "... we believe that military intervention would be the worst solution" France calls for greater respect of Iraq to the resolutions already adopted by the Security Council, regarding the issues of weapons of mass destruction. The French government require new inspections in Iraq, once a measure should not be taken without any concrete evidence of a breach of other resolutions. If something becomes proven by new inspections, France believes in other ways to make the implementation of the measures already adopted by the Security Council, by means other than warlike. Therefore urging mutual respect for all countries, to the resolutions already adopted in the Security Council, to the international law and especially, the concept of sovereignty.

Germany

The Chancellor Gerhard Schrder won the 2002 general elections promising to Germans that Germany will not enter in any possible conflict and, above all, would be contrary to it. Germany calls for greater respect of Iraq to the resolutions already adopted by the Security Council, regarding the issues of weapons of mass destruction. The Germany Chancellor believes in the diplomacy and in the respect to the international law and to the sovereignty.

Guinea Guineas position seems to be conditioned to that of the United States. The US hopes that Guinea's interest in pursuing aid-and-trade agreements with the U.S. will sway its 27

decision. Guinea even stated that it would consider supporting the U.K./U.S. resolution in the Security Council, although it hasnt committed itself to a position yet.

Iraq

Iraq believes that the resolutions of the UN Security Council violate its sovereignty, but is willing to negotiate with the board members some measures, trying to avoid any kind of conflict. Saddam Hussein denies emphatically that still possesses weapons of mass destruction or any state program for their development. According to Baghdad, all WMD were destroyed during the decade of 90, according to the determinations of the Security Council of the United Nations. Iraq strongly denies having any type of links with the terrorist group Al-Qaeda or the attack on the World Trade Center September 11, 2001 in New York. Denying the argument of U.S. that Iraq has ties to al-Qaeda or other international terrorist groups.

League of Arab States

The Arab League, representing the States of the Middle East, has a clearly position on a possible war between Iraq and the U.S. However, even, closer to the U.S. government by supporting the war on terror, the Arab League position itself against the invasion of Iraq. They argue that the conflict should be resolved through diplomacy and respect the resolutions of the UN Security Council. These countries fear that a war in Iraq could destabilize the whole region, directly threatening neighbors. According to the League of Arab States the only current threat to the stability and peace in the Arab world is the possession of nuclear weapons by the government of Israel.

Mexico Mexico has been consistently backing France and Germany in their request for inspections to be given more time and Mexican diplomats have recently described their conversations with US officials as hostile in tone and that Washington has demonstrated little concern for the constraints of the Mexican government, whose people are

28

overwhelmingly opposed to the war with Iraq. It has no wish of getting involved in a war. In February, 2003, however, the Mexican government hinted it might be ready to shift its vote at the Security Council, not because it had been convinced by the U.S. argument but because it feared its dealings with Washington on issues such as trade and immigration would be negatively affected by voting against its neighbour. In that case, it would support a US-led military campaign if it were backed by the UN and if noncompliance continued, but might consider supporting a military campaign without UN backing as well. Mexico made clear that its position will be determined exclusively by its primary "national interest," which is its relationship with the U.S.

Pakistan

Iraq is a fraternal Islamic country, a country that should be among the most prosperous and advanced in the Middle East. If war is to be avoided and a peaceful solution realized, the Council must impress upon Iraq at this meeting once again that it must comply fully and faithfully with its resolutions prescribing the elimination of its weapons of mass destruction and Iraq must extend, as resolution 1441 (2002) demands active, immediate and unconditional cooperation. Pakistan believes that an agreed approach can and must be evolved, even at this stage, through consultations among Council members and with United Nations inspectors. The best assurance of success in securing the disarmament of Iraqs WMD peacefully is the unity of the Security Council. The government of Pakistan tries to avoid at its most the early use of force in this situation and believes that the solution achieved must not have double standards and has to proceed according the principle of equity and non-discrimination. Peoples Republic of China

China presses for continued U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq even after the Security Council has been repeatedly told that no evidence of weapons of mass destruction could be found. At the same time, it calls for a return to a peaceful disarmament policy and has harshly criticized Bush's military action and calls US actions illegal and in breach of 29

the UN Charter; it believes that sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity must be respected. China does not seem, however, prone to exercising its Security Council veto and has abstained in many previous decisions on Iraq.

Russian Federation

The Russian federation is against any possible military intervention and will not allow the adoption of any resolution authorizing the automatic use of force, because of the high risk to the safety of the international community. In fact, Russia does not believe that Iraq is actually producing nuclear weapons and will not approve any type of intervention in Iraq without any proves in fact. Even if something becomes proven, the Russia Federation advocates the disarmament through diplomacy. Claiming for Iraq to respect the resolutions already adopted by the Security Council, while Iraq producing weapons of mass destruction or not.

Spain

Spain supported the failed attempt of the United States and, United Kingdom, in the beginning of this year, to approve in the Security Council a resolution called Resolution 18, that support a military intervention in Iraq, if the same continue to disrespect the resolution of the Security Council. Thus, Spain shares the idea that Iraq has chemical weapons and is developing other types of weapons of mass destruction, as the U.S. and U.K. With a history of struggle against terrorist groups, mainly within their own territory, Spain, sharing the idea of a possible link between the terrorist group Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, sees Iraq as a potential threat to the world.

Syrian Arab Republic

Syria is against the event of a war and refuses to submit to Washington's demand for cooperation; while it will not take part in military operations, tangible opposition to a new conflict is minimal. Syrians believe that none of Iraq's neighbours feet it is a threat, and that weapons of mass destruction are a mere pretext for a war motivated by the interests of Israel and the US companies that hope to profit from post-war reconstruction contracts. 30

Though the country derives significant economic benefits from Iraq and has criticized US war plans, the country was among the 15 votes behind U.N. Security Council resolution 1441 (2002), which demanded the renewal of United Nations weapons inspections, acting in concert with Russia, France, and Germany.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The United Kingdom strongly supports the United States with respect that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction and did not destroyed the chemicals weapons that was used against Iran (1980-88), as required by the United Nations. Believing that there is a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, these weapons threaten the global security. In short, The United Kingdom argues, as the United States, that the world is threatened and, cannot wait until the threat of Iraq leader Saddam Hussein becomes imminent. The United Kingdom has already tried a failed attempt, in the beginning of this year, to approve possible military intervention in Iraq, if the same continued to disrespect the resolutions os the Security Council, by the calling Resolution 18.

United States of America

The United States of America strongly believes that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. Not only developing, but that the weapons used in the war against Iran (1980-88), were not destroyed as required by the United Nations. These weapons threaten the global security. In addition to the weapons of mass destruction, the United States of America also believe that there are indications that there is a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The Unite States, in the beginning of the year, has failed attempting to approve in the Security Council, a resolution called Resolution 18, that support a military intervention in Iraq, if the same continue to disrespect the resolution of the Security Council. The American president, Bush, argues that the United States cannot wait until the threat of Iraq leader Saddam Hussein becomes imminent.

9. Bibliography
31

ALARCON, Danillo. Os meandros da poltica externa dos Estados Unidos para o Afeganisto: o 11 de setembro e a Operao Liberdade Duradoura. Universidade de Braslia. Instituto de Relaes Internacionais - Programa de Ps-Graduao em Relaes Internacionais. Braslia, 2012.

AMORIM, Celso. Discursos, Palestras e Artigos do Chanceler Celso Amorim. Volume 1. Ministrio das relaes exteriores. 2006. BARAM, Amatzia. POST, Jerrold M. Saddam is Iraq: Iraq is Saddam. Available at: <http://cpc.au.af.mil/PDF/monograph/saddamisiraq.pdf> Access: 03 Jan. 2013.

BARSTOW, David. J. BROAD, William. GERTH, Jeff. How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence. The New York Times. 3 Oct. 2004. Available at: <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?pagewante d=print&position=&_r=0> Access: 22 Feb. 2013.

BLAIR,

Tony.

Speech

in

Sedgefield,

05

Mar.

2004.

Available

at:

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/mar/05/iraq.iraq> Access: 28 May 2013.

BLIX, Hans, Briefing of the Security Council, 14 feb. 2003. Available at: < http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd30.htm >. Access: 07 Mar. 2013.

BLUMENTHAL, Sidney. Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Salon. 6 Sept. 2007. Available at: <http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/> Access: 22 Feb. 2013.

BOOTH, Ken & DUNNE, Tim (eds.). Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of the Global Order, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

BOWEN, Gordon L. Roots of the Arab - Israeli Conflict. Available at: < http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/IsraelRoots.htm#5 >. Access on: 03 Jan. 2013. 32

BYMAN, Daniel L.. Terrorism and the War with Iraq, Brookings website, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, 2003. Available at:

<http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2003/03/03middleeast-byman>. Access on 12 Feb. 2013.

CHANAA,

Jane.

Research

Guide:

Iraq.

November

2007.

Available

at:

<http://www.forcedmigration.org/research-resources/expert-guides/iraq/fmo015.pdf> Access: 03 Jan. 2013.

CLAPPER, James R. Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community. March 12, 2013

COELHO, Ins; COUTINHO, Ins; MATOS, Sara; OLIVEIRA, Filipe; OLIVEIRA, Gonalo; RODRIGUES, Ana Lusa; XAVIER, Ana Isabel. Publicaes humanas. A Organizao das Naes Unidas. 2007.

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Terrorism Heavens: Iraq, Council on Foreign Relations website, 2005. Available at: < http://www.cfr.org/iraq/terrorismhavens-iraq/p9513#p6>. Access on 12 Feb 2013.

CRENSHAW, Marta. O terrorismo visto como problema de segurana internacional. In: HERZ, Monica; AMARAL, Arthur Bernardes do (eds). Terrorismo e Relaes Internacionais: perspectivas e desafios para o sculo XXI. Rio de Janeiro: PUC Rio: Edio Loyola, 2010.

DAWISHA, Adeed. Arab Nationalism in the Twentieth Century: From Triumph to Despair.

DINIZ, Eugnio. Compreendendo o Fenmeno do Terrorismo. In: Brigago, Clvis; Proena Jr., Domcio (Org.) Paz e Terrorismo: textos do seminrio. So Paulo: Hucitec, 2004.

33

ERIKSON, Mikael. STABIANO, Carina. WALLENSTEEN, Peter. UN Sanctions against Iraq: Lessons Learned. Uppsala University Department of Peace and Conflict Research. 2005. Available at:

<http://pcr.uu.se/digitalAssets/112/112141_iraqreport_050210.pdf> Access: 03 Jan. 2013. FATTAH, Halla. CASO, Frank. A Brief History Of Iraq. Infobase Publishing, 2009.

GRAY, Colin S. War, Peace, and International Relations. New York: Routledge, 2007. HAYS, Jeffrey. September 11th, its legacy and the people who planned it and carried it out. Facts and Details. 2008

HERZ, M. ; HOFFMAN, R. Segurana Coletiva. In:______. Organizaes Internacionais: histria e prticas. Rio de Janeiro: Campus, 2004, p.82-131

HOFFMAN, Bruce. Inside Terrorism. Nova York, Columbia University Press, 2006. Human Rights Watch. Genocide in Iraq - The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds August 14, 2006. Available at: <http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/08/14/genocide-iraqanfal-campaign-against-kurds> Access: 03 Jan. 2013.

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols. 2010. Available at:

<http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/genevaconventions/overview-geneva-conventions.htm> Access: 30 Jan. 2013

International War Crimes Tribunal. United States War Crimes Against Iraq. Available at: <http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm> Access: 03 Jan. 2013.

KATZMAN, Kenneth. Iraq: Weapons Threat, Compliance, Sanctions, and U.S. Policy. Issue Brief for Congress. 10 Dez. 2002. Available at:

<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd21.pdf> Access: 23 Feb. 2013. 34

KENNETH, Estes. The Free Congress Commentary. November 26, 2007. Available at: <http://www.dnipogo.org/lind/lind_archive.htm> Access: 03 Jan. 2013.

KLEIN, David. Mechanisms of Western Domination: A Short History of Iraq and Kuwait. January 2003. Available at:

<http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html> Access: 03 Jan. 2013.

KRISTOF, Nicholas D. Missing in Action: Truth. The New York Times. May 6, 2003. Available <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/opinion/06KRIS.html?pagewanted=print>. Access: 30 jan. 2013. at:

KUGLER, Richard. Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan A Case Study of Adaptation in Battle. Case Studies in Defense Transformation Number 5. Center for Technology and National Security Policy. 2007.

LEWIS, Patricia. From UNSCOM to UNMOVIC: The United Nations and Iraq. 2001.

LIMA, Bruna Casarotto Pessoa. A influncia da interveno dos Estados Unidos no Afeganisto para a democratizao e desenvolvimento desse pas (2001-2010). Centro Universitrio de Braslia, Faculdade de Cincias Jurdicas e Sociais FAJS. Braslia, 2012.

MORTIMER, Louis R. Iraq a Country study. Headquarters, Department of the Army.

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 80. Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction, 2004 Available at:

<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80> Access: 03 Jan. 2013.

SHALOM, R. Stephen. The United States and Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988. January 03, 2013. Available at:

35

<http://iranchamber.com/history/articles/united_states_iran_iraq_war1.php> Access: 03 Jan. 2013.

STERN, Jessica. The Ultimate Terrorists, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2001.

STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Oil and Security. Stockholm, Sweden. Available at:

<http://books.sipri.org/files/books/SIPRI74Heineback.pdf> Access: 03 Jan. 2013.

STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Geneva Protocol reservations. 2007. Available at:

<http://archives.sipri.org/contents/expcon/cbwarfare/cbw_research_doc/cbw_historical/ cbw-hist-geneva-res.html>. Access: 30 Jan. 2013. Terror and Progress, World History. Chapter IX From the Cold War to the War on Terror. Available at: <http://www.worldhistoryplus.com/terror_progress_9.html>

Access: 03 Jan. 2013.

UNITED NATIONS. United Nations Charter and Statute of the International Court of Justice. s.d. a. Available at:

<http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml>. Access: 05 Mar. 2011.

UNITED NATIONS. Functions and Powers. United Nations website. s.d. b. Available at: <http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/functions.shtml>. Access: 17 Dez. 2012.

UNITED NATIONS. Oil-for-Food: About the programme. s.d. c. Available at: <http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/index.html>. Access: 01 Jan. 2013.

UNITED NATIONS, Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 1968. Available at: <http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml>. Access: 31 Mar. 2013.

36

UNITED NATIONS. Seventh report under resolution 1051. 1999. Available at: < http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Semiannual/sres99-1037.htm> Access: 01 Jan. 2013.

UNITED NATIONS. Sixth report under resolution 1051. 1998. Available at: <http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/sres401eng.htm> Access: 01 Jan. 2013. YOO, John C. The presidents constitutional authority to conduct military operations against terrorists and nations supporting them. September 25, 2001

YUDENITSCH, Natalia. 11 de setembro de 2001: a origem da intolerncia. 01 Apr. 2005. Aventura na Histria. Available at:

<http://guiadoestudante.abril.com.br/aventuras-historia/11-setembro-2001-origemintolerancia-434461.shtml> Access: 07 Feb. 2013.

10.Annex
I Resolutions

Resolution 687 (1991) <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/687(1991)>.

Resolution 715 (1991) <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/715(1991)>.

Resolution 1060 (1996) <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1060(1996)>.

Resolution 1409 (2002) <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1409(2002)>.

Resolution 1441 (2002) <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1441(2002)>.

Resolution 1443 (2002) 37

<http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1443(2002)>.

Resolution 1447 (2002) <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1447(2002)>.

Resolution 1454 (2002) <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1454(2002)>.

38