Global Policy Forum

By Shravanti Reddy

The commitment of the United States to the United Nations may reach a crisis concerning the use of force against Iraq. As part of a larger campaign against terrorism, US President George W. Bush has called for preemptive strikes against Iraq in order to confiscate and destroy biological and chemical weapons in the country and disband its nuclear weapons program.

Bush claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possesses such weapons and will either use them against the US, or will provide them to anti-US terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. His ultimate goal is a regime change in Iraq by deposing Hussein.

However, support for the use of force against Iraq is weak among other Member States of the UN, especially since Iraq agreed to allow weapons inspectors into the country last month.Bush and senior administration officials argue that Iraq has defied United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions on weapons inspections for the past ten years and will continue to do so.

Therefore, they continue to seek approval of a new UNSC resolution on Iraq that provides for the use of force immediately if Iraq does not comply with renewed weapons inspections. The 15-member UNSC is the only international body given the power to call for the use of force to maintain international peace and security.

Nevertheless, Bush also made it clear in a speech last month to the UN General Assembly that the US is committed to taking action against Iraq even if the UN fails to do so.

"The purposes of the United States should not be doubted," he said. Such statements defy the meaning and purpose of the establishment of the UN and are a direct challenge to UN authority over issues of international peace and security.A further challenge came last week when US Congress approved a resolution giving Bush the power to use military force against Iraq without obtaining approval from the UNSC.

The move was harshly criticized by UN Secretary-general Kofi Annan who stated that "any country when attacked has an inherent right to self-defense…. but when a country decides to deal with a broader threat to international peace and security, the approval and support of the Security Council is required."In the past, the US has been able to exert significant influence within the UN.

The outcome has been that despite the fact that UN actions and decisions are supposed to reflect international consensus, they are often forced to bow to US interests.

As the Security Council begins its open debate on Iraq this Wednesday, the outcome of one remaining question could have grave implications for the future legitimacy of the UN.Will the UN be able to compel the US to comply with a decision that goes against US interests, or will the US be able to pressure the Security Council members into authorizing military strikes against Iraq?

World opinion opposes the US on Iraq

While the US has made some very bold statements concerning Iraq, including releasing a military occupation plan modeled after that used in Japan after W.W.II, world opinion has remained very negative.

Many countries, including US allies such as Germany and Canada, have expressed their opposition to military strikes against Iraq without UNSC approval. There have also been massive protests in France and the UK over the US Congressional resolution passed last week.

More importantly, Permanent Members of the UNSC, who have veto power over its decisions, have also expressed resistance to the UNSC resolution called for by Bush. The five Permanent Members of the UNSC are the US, UK, Russia, China, and France.

Many echo Russian President Vladimir Putin's assertion that the use of force is premature given the lack of adequate information on Iraqi weapons arsenal and their consent to a renewed weapons inspections program last month. "There is no reliable evidence of Iraq's possession of nuclear or any other mass destruction weapons, and we haven't received any convincing proof of the presence of such weapons in Iraq from our partners," stated Putin.

Some have also accused the US of using the issue of weapons inspections as an excuse to gain control of Iraq, and its vast oil resources. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf also voiced the fear that military action against Iraq by the US would also arouse the anger of Islamic extremists.

However, while the majority opposes the use of force against Iraq, they understand the deeper implications of a unilateral strike by the US. Former South African President Nelson Mandela did not make an overstatement when he warned Bush that "his administration risks destroying the United Nations if it attacks Iraq without international support.

"Such a move would show a clear lack of commitment to the UN and would be a culmination of several decisions in the recent past that have eroded UN accountability and power, holding them subject to US will. By sidestepping UN decisions, the US will create an atmosphere for other countries to follow suit that could result in the ultimate lack of international law and order.

US/UN relations: An uneasy past

If the US succeeds in obtaining a UNSC resolution that is favorable to US policy goals in Iraq, it will not be the first time that US pressure has forced UN Member States to capitulate to their interests.

The power that the US holds within the UN comes from its economic, political and military strength that is unmatched in the world today. As the only remaining superpower, the US has been able to wield significant influence over international affairs.

One reason for this is that the US is a Permanent Member of the UNSC and therefore has veto power over its decisions. This is a very powerful tool that the US has used to protect national interests, despite the fact that it may hinder overall international peace and security. Earlier this year, the US threatened to veto all future UN peacekeeping missions unless the UNSC approved a resolution granting US citizens exemption from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The ICC was created to try individuals for the most heinous international crimes and has received widespread international support. UNSC members finally gave in to US demands by providing a one-year exemption for US citizens from the purview of the ICC, ultimately undermining its powers.

The US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte further threatened, "Should the ICC eventually seek to detain any American, the US would regard this as illegitimate—and it would have serious consequences."

The UN is also heavily reliant on the US for funding. In addition to providing one fourth of the UN general budget, the US also provides almost a third of the money needed for the more expensive peacekeeping operations. When the US withheld their UN dues for a period during the 1990s, the activities and programs of the UN were severely affected.

More recently, the US has withheld some US$34 million from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), an agency of the UN whose humanitarian mandate is to promote reproductive health care and family planning programs in order to save women's lives.

The funding was withheld in a concession to the powerful pro-life constituency within the US who rallied around unsubstantiated claims that UNFPA promoted forced abortions and the involuntary sterilization of women. Although UNFPA roundly denounced such allegations, the loss of close to 10 percent of their annual budget significantly hampered their ability to provide programming for women in developing countries. The US has also been successful in exerting pressure on individual countries in order to gain favorable decisions within the UN, or, at the very least, to suppress opposition.

Many countries have a strong interest in maintaining good relations with the US, a country that can be an important ally and a powerful foe. They may be reliant on the US for economic, political or security reasons. The potential loss of development aid and the fear of damaging trade relations are powerful incentives to swallow their criticism of the US.

Some government leaders may also rely on US political or military support to keep them in power. Such factors make it difficult for a developing country that has little political power in the international arena to oppose the US on issues within the UN. In many cases, powerful countries are also hindered from taking a strong stance against the US.

In addition, the strength of the US makes it almost impossible for the UN to seek to impose its decisions on the US. The 40-plus years of economic embargo against Cuba is a good example. Despite General Assembly (GA) resolutions condemning it, President Bush stated last May that he would maintain the embargo.

The UN has little leverage to try and pressure the US to comply with the GA resolution. Similarly, a unilateral action against Iraq would also be difficult to prevent. The US, particularly under the Bush Administration, has also shown disregard for international conferences and human rights treaties.

President Bush skipped out of several important conferences this year such as the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the General Assembly Special Session on Children. Both were widely attended by other world leaders. The US has also refused to ratify the majority of human rights treaties and have actually unsigned the ICC Statute. However, wielding such power is not without its repercussions.

In a report released last week sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House, a bipartisan task force found that "the United States has undermined its position in the world body by neglecting or sending mixed messages to the much larger constituency of countries active in the General Assembly."It also found that the emergence of regional and economic voting blocks are providing a challenge to the US. However, the overall effects of such resistance to US power have so far remained minimal.

Defining moments

While the US has not softened their stance, Iraq has also shown that they may be less cooperative than anticipated, making military strikes against them more likely. This past week Iraq has once again attempted to alter and delay the weapons inspection agreement defined earlier this month. It detailed strict provisions for full access to sites within the country.

Hussein's adviser sent two letters that have sent a blurred message about Iraq's agreement with the UN provisions. While agreeing to allow inspections as soon as October 19, they also made vague statements about their full acceptance of the terms. Such an attitude further supports Bush's argument. "Iraq continues to want to play word games and not comply… Iraq responds to pressure, but will revert to noncompliance the moment it thinks it can.

That is why the UN Security Council must tell Iraq what to do and what will happen if it doesn't," explained US State Department spokeswoman Jo-Anne Prokowicz.

While such actions on the part of Iraq may soften opposition to US proposals for the use of force, it will not obliterate them. The overriding opinion still suggests that military strikes be used cautiously.

The likely outcome of the UNSC debate this week is that they will have to make some sort of concession to US interests. If the US carries out unilateral strikes without the approval of the UN, it would severely compromise UN authority and open a Pandora's Box for other countries to disregard international law on the use of force.

It could also embolden the US and other countries to disregard legal boundaries in other areas of international law. The Iranian Oil Minister worried that "after Iraq, they could attack any other free country.'' President Musharraf also expressed fear that preemptive strikes against Iraq could incite India to attack Pakistan.

While France continues to remain a strong opponent of unilateral strikes by the US, they have suggested a two-resolution proposal that is seen as an important and potential compromise. The first UNSC resolution would create a renewed weapons inspection program, and the second would discuss the use of force only if Iraq refuses to abide by the first resolution.

Russia, China and the UK have expressed support for this French scheme. However, it does not seem as if Bush is willing to accept such a compromise. "The President doesn't want to have to wait around for a second resolution if it is clear that the Iraqis are not cooperating," said one Bush administration official. The UNSC could also adopt the two-resolution approach with the implicit understanding that the US might strike without waiting for a second resolution.

In this scenario the UNSC can save face by quickly rubber-stamping what Bush has already begun. It can leave the interpretation of the first resolution open, thereby allowing Bush to claim it provided him with enough authority to act decisively on behalf of the UNSC.

While there is also a slim chance that the US may be willing to further compromise, it seems unlikely given the momentum generated to date. Also unlikely is the probability that Member States will be able to apply enough pressure against the US to force them to back down significantly, or gather enough support to defy US interests altogether.

For now, it seems that the US will continue to act according to its own set of rules.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.