FOCUS
Regime change does not justify war
| • | Invasion may end treaties on arms |
| • | Saddam dreams of Kim Jong Il's weapons |
By Carolyn Stephenson
President Bush argues that a pre-emptive war by the United States, alone or with a "coalition of the willing," will be necessary to deal with Iraq if it does not obey U.N. resolutions very soon.
The purpose of such a war, however, is not clear.
Is it "regime change" or is it disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction? Congress expressed its sense, as early as the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338), that U.S. policy should support efforts to remove the present Iraqi regime from power and promote the emergence of a democratic government.
But the action paragraphs of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 of Nov. 8 focus specifically on the restoration of inspections and verification of disarmament. While the Bush regime has pushed Iraqi "regime change" as the goal at home, it has pushed disarmament at the United Nations.
If Saddam Hussein thinks the United States will attack no matter what, then he has no incentive to cooperate.
Are these goals legitimate? Chemical, biological and nuclear disarmament, clearly are. But war on Iraq will not enable us to find chemical, biological or nuclear weapons if they are there. According to a CIA letter on Oct. 7, however, a U.S. attack might well provoke Iraq into the use of chemical and biological weapons, or into providing these weapons to terrorists.
"Regime change" is clearly not a legitimate cause of war under international law. Under Article 2 (4) of the U.N. Charter, members agree to refrain "from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
Changing another government's leadership is not legitimate. The recognition of the illegitimacy of regime change is why the United States has not brought this goal before the U.N. Security Council.
There is a major difference between military enforcement of Security Council resolutions and unilateral war.
Bush said: "We have called on the U.N. to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm."
The U.N. Charter and Resolution 1441 specify how U.N. resolutions are to be enforced. Article 39 of the charter says: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and shall ... decide what measures shall be taken, in accordance with Articles 41 or 42 ... "
Article 41 provides for nonmilitary sanctions, Article 42 for military sanctions, as methods of enforcement.
States are not to take enforcement into their own hands, but agree to act only when the Security Council so decides. When there is no clear international agreement in the council, neither military nor nonmilitary sanctions shall be used. Having other allies with us may change the balance of power, but it does not make the action legal.
When a major international power takes actions illegal under the very charter it wrote, it does not encourage other states to act legally or justly.
It is not legal for the United States to enforce U.N. resolutions on its own. While Iraq may be in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions 687 (1991) and 1441 (2002) and many others, only the Security Council, of which the United States is a member, can decide that.
The United States has argued that it set up the no-fly zones in Iraq in 1991 to enforce Security Council Resolution 688, which demanded that Iraq end the repression of its civilian population and allow humanitarian access.
Yet the Security Council never authorized any country to set up the no-fly zones. The United States suggests that Iraq's shooting at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone is a violation of U.N. resolutions, when in fact the U.S. establishment of the no-fly-zone and bombing in Iraqi territory is what is not legal.
Neither Iraq nor any other state can be allowed to flout international law. Although many want to stop sanctions on humanitarian grounds, in fact we need reinstitution of a tougher inspection regime with increased resources, stiff and "smart" sanctions, clear goals, short deadlines, escalation for noncooperation and de-escalation for cooperation. That should be the next step if Iraq does not cooperate immediately on 1441.
But sanctions cannot work when the stated and actual goals conflict. If Iraq does not respond to sanctions, then U.N. procedures provide for military enforcement, when and only when there is Security Council agreement.
War is not the answer.
Carolyn Stephenson teaches international relations at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa.
