Jason
Ackleson
Talk
for Teach-In, 28 October 2002
Let
me begin by offering just a quick look at the background of the UN’s
involvement with Iraq.
The UN’s involvement predates the Gulf War,
and during that conflict, the organization lent backing to the US and its
allies.
The case was much more clear-cut then, as Iraq had
violated a core principle of the UN charter: non-aggression against other
member states
After the war, the UN coordinated weapons
inspections for a nearly 8 year period with varied success.
During this period, economic sanctions were
placed on Iraq in punishment for its recalcitrance on weapons of mass
destruction. These sanctions have
impacted everything in Iraq from food supplies to transportation to medical
supplies and, given the regime, compounded suffering and death among hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis.
An “oil for food” scheme began in 1996 to
allow humanitarian supplies to be purchased by limited oil sales.
However, the US has undercut the program in
various ways through its actions in the UN, working to minimize the
humanitarian goods which enter Iraq.
In this way, the program—and the UN itself —have
been de-legitimized in the process.
The US has become even more unpopular in the Middle
East, and of the suffering the Iraqi people have encountered has increased.
§
A number
of UN Security Council resolutions on Iraqi disarmament exist.
§
The
current debate in the Security Council revolves around a new, US and UK-authored
resolution to return inspectors to the country and back up non-compliance with
automatic force.
§
The
problem as France and Russia see it is that Bush may be setting a hair-trigger
with this resolution, one that will be fired the instant that weapons inspectors
encounter any obstruction or prevarication,
This would allow him to interpret even a minor
violation as the right to launch military action against Iraq.
§
Nine of
the 15 votes on the council are needed to get a resolution passed.
The Five permanent members can abstain or vote in favor, but if they vote
against, the resolution fails.
§
France
and Russia, two of the permanent members, so far have indicated they may veto
the resolution.
§
Discussions
are underway as we speak.
There
are a variety of problems with all of this, of course revolving around the
bigger question of going to war with Iraq—the subject of this teach-in.
But
there are deeper and long-term implications for the UN and
international law if the US pursues its current course.
The
problem is two fold.
1.
First,
difficulties emerge if the US elects to go around the UN.
Bush has made it clear he is willing to do so.
This would mean the United States would act as a law unto itself,
creating new rules of international engagement without agreement by other
nations.
This would conflict with the UN charter,
of which we are a signatory.
The Charter explicitly reserves to sovereign nations
"the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense" but only
in the event of armed attack.
2.
The second
problem is with how the US is using the UN, even when we are nominally
seeking international cooperation.
In the current negotiations over inspectors and war,
the US has taken a combative and unilateral approach to the UN, always holding
out the unilateral threat.
§
It’s
not enough to act unilaterally in the organization, arm-wrangling and finally
winning a rubber stamp from the Council or going it alone.
This
only de-legitimizes the UN, as does our policy on the Oil for Food
Program
§
Rather,
the US needs to operate in a way that holds true to the best principles of the
organization, the idea of international cooperation, and the fundamentals of the
UN charter.
If
the UN pursued this alternative course, it not only will achieve more
progressive results in our national interest, but also shore up the crucial
and correct role of the United Nations: the peaceful resolution of
conflict and the importance of cooperation within international law and
international ethics.
These
are vitally important, given the reality that we live in a world of sovereign
states.
If
we don’t alter course, we risk positioning ourselves for further foreign policy failures, all
against our national interests, including:
§
Possible
violent convulsions in the Middle East and increasing anti-Americanism
§
Fractured
global support for a post-Saddam regime
§
Detracting
from the global effort against terrorism and al Qaeda
But
the danger of the Bush doctrine is really broader than that: it is a
general depreciation of international rules, treaties, and security
partnerships.
§
Unchecked
and illegitimate US power, removed from the postwar norms and institutions of
the international order, will foster a more hostile international system which
is ultimately harmful to American interests.
§
Better to
adhere to the UN’s rule-based international order, especially one in
which the United States uses its political power to derive cooperative and
congenial rules.
The
final point to make is this conflict detracts from the bigger question of global
development—easing the conditions that feed terrorism and tyrants
worldwide. Dealing with this issue
would best way for sustained solutions.
Given
the global nature of all of these issues, the UN it would seem to me, is an
ideal organization to do something on a globalized basis.
The US should be a responsible and ethical leader in it.
The final point I want to leave you with is a quote from Albert Einstein: “the important thing is to not stop questioning.” I hope this will guide us as events proceed.
More
Faculty Papers from the Teach In/Speak Out