UN Role in Iraq

The United Nations is an impressionable organization of independent states formed to promote

international peace and security. In March 2003, the United States announced that “diplomacy had
failed” and that it would proceed to rid Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction
that the US repeatedly claimed Iraq possessed. After a prolonged period of threats and military build-
up, the United States and its military ally, the United Kingdom, attacked Iraq on Thursday, March 20,
2003 - an action that violated the UN Charter. The UK and US troops of 300,000 were met with
staunch resistance from the Iraqis. The invasion received critical public opinion and strong opposition
from countries such as China, France, Germany, Russia as well as the majority of UN member states.
The war has created a humanitarian crisis in Iraq and a tumult in the international political system.

The previous United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly that the US-led
war in Iraq was illegal and violated the UN Charter. The UN Security Council refused to endorse the
US-UK invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003. Washington and London hoped to ignore the
UN and operate Iraq with a free hand. However, fierce Iraqi resistance, economic and political
problems and continuing international criticism forced the US-UK to seek international partners for
their enterprise, including assistance from the UN. In 2004, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi – the senior envoy to
Iraq

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of
the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for
only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the
Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security. In this case, the
United Nations Security Council did not pass resolution 18, nor did they authorize the use of force
against Iraq.

The debate waged between two sides. Some thought that UN could be the catalyst for
internationalization and US-UK withdrawal from the war. Others held the opinion that UN involvement
would hinder and discredit the organization. Following the adoption of Security Council Resolution
1483 two months after the war, then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed a Special
Representative for Iraq and the UN assumed some small responsibilities there. This led to critics
warning that the UN should not become involved with illegal war and occupation.

Prior to 2002, the Security Council had passed 16 resolutions regarding Iraq. In 2002, the
Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 mandates the
creation of an enhanced inspection regime and lays out the process to be
implemented if Iraq fails to comply. The ambiguous wording of the resolution was
a compromise for the United States, which insisted on an automatic trigger for
military action and for France, which insisted on a second resolution in the case of
Iraqi noncompliance.

In 2003, the governments of U.S., Britain and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, referred
to as the eighteenth resolution. The proposed resolution was withdrawn when it became clear that
several permanent members on the council would cast no new votes on any new resolution, thereby
vetoing it. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition consisted of
Bulgaria, the United States, Britain and Spain – well short of the required nine affirmative votes. For a
resolution to pass on the UN Security Council, a supermajority of nine out of fifteen votes are
necessary.
 In August 2003, a massive bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad caused the UN to pull out
of Iraq. In 2004, succumbing to US pressure, the UN agreed to send a mission to the country, to help
construct a new interim government. Washington kept the UN's political role weak, while seeking to
legitimize their occupation through the UN. After implementing an interim government, the US
pressured the UN to take a larger role in planning national elections, but the UN Secretary General and
UN staff kept their involvement to a minimal. Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, the senior envoy to Iraq noted that
Iraqis, “"do believe that the UN has a vital role of assistance, of facilitation, to play in bringing about a
successful political transition in which the entire Iraqi people are stakeholders.”

Today, Washington is citing the worsening humanitarian crisis as reason enough for the UN to
step in. But critics say the US intends to use the UN to push Iraqis to accept US-imposed "benchmarks"
for reconciliation, including a controversial oil law and debaathification. The UN Chief Inspector, Hans
Blix notes that to this day, the US-UK have not found evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The
current Secretary General, Ban-Ki Moon is cooperative with the US and is supportive of the UN
involvement in Iraq. Despite strong opposition from the UN Staff Council – which represents 25,000
UN workers – the Security Council succumbed to US and UK pressure and voted on August 10, 2007
to expand the UN's role in Iraq. Until the US withdraws from Iraq, there can be no plausible UN role in
the growing humanitarian and political crisis in Iraq. The US has forced the UN down a slippery slope.

Sources:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/political-issues-in-iraq/un-role-in-iraq.html

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Cr=iraq&Cr1=&NewsID=11442

http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/invasion-and-war/invasion-of-iraq.html

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2951773.stm

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21323.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3661134.stm