Military Intervention:
The United States and The United Nations
John McKeeman
Danny Newman
E.D.G.E. 297A
November 28, 2003
Introduction:
Recent actions taken by the United States government and its military forces have sought to ensure democracy and freedom for all people of the earth. Not only for those living in oppressed countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan, but also, and perhaps more importantly, to those living in the United States; to protect our own freedoms and safety. In each of the two mentioned countries, the United States declared that it had undeniable proof that injustices had been committed by Iraq and Afghanistan and that a military strike was justified because of this evidence. In the case of Afghanistan it was the 9/11 attacks on New York City’s Twin Towers and Washington’s Pentagon, with a fourth attempt at destruction that was avoided thanks to the courageous efforts of passengers on Flight 90 which downed in rural Pennsylvania. In Iraq’s case, the United States CIA and intelligence officials made claims that weapons of mass destruction had been found and located in Iraq. Because these weapons were said to exist, the United States claimed that it had no choice but to initiate a preemptive attack to not only ensure Saddam Hussein could not use these weapons, but also to “free” the people of Iraq from the reign of Hussein and his sons.
However, as months have passed since the “successful” attacks on Iraq began and ended, many people and countries around the world have come forward to question whether the United States acted in accordance with international law when it took these preemptive measures against Iraq. Despite the United Nations sending in WMD experts to search the country for said weapons, none have been found as of yet. This fact has given even more fuel to the fire in the debate on the United States’ actions. Not only did Iraq not make any military strikes provoking the U.S., now the reason that President Bush gave for necessitating the attacks (the existence of deadly WMD) appears to be a farce. In light of this, leaders such as Germany’s Defense Minister Peter Struck have declared that:
Preventive (military) action requires unambiguous intelligence. The weapons of mass destruction which cannot be found in Iraq have shown how thin the ice can be when one embarks on a war of self-defense on the basis of supposedly clear proof of an imminent threat. One can ask the question whether what the United States did in Iraq was legitimate under international law.[i]
These words echoed those of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder who was extremely verbal against the U.S. and its decision to invade Iraq.
The most stinging question remaining from the Iraqi mess is not what will come of the nation, or who will rule it after U.S. forces set up a government and Constitution, but rather, was the United States’ actions illegal in their strike against Iraq? Did they violate the “rules of warfare” as outlined in both the NATO and UN charters? Did past precedents dealing with similar issues such as Afghanistan and incidents in the Balkans and Bosnia lead the U.S. to believe it was actually acting in accordance with international law? If not, then the U.S. and specifically President Bush could presumably be taken up on charges of breaking said international laws. Where is the line drawn between Bush’s actions, invading a country supposedly to ensure international safety, and the actions of a dictator, say Hitler, who also invaded nations at his own free will for his “reasons”? Now this is not to say that we in any way support the horrific actions taken by Hitler, but it is merely posed as somewhat of a thought-provoking question. If Bush can invade and ultimately destroy Iraq, then rebuild it as he sees fit and claim that it was done for “democracy,” then can’t almost any invasion be justified? Especially in the Iraqi case where much evidence points away from the military actions being taken for Bush’s claimed purposes, and instead towards ensuring low prices for oil and removing the “headache” that has been the Hussein regime. Nonetheless, at the heart of this debate is the hard, international legal facts involved.
Examination into Past Precedents:
To start the investigation into the exact legality of the United States’ actions, we looked back at past precedents and laws that emerged as a result of international conflict and intervention. In order to examine a situation, it is first necessary to define the legal and theoretical background derived from earlier conflicts. Two specific examples, Kosovo and Somalia both rendered changes to international law and the UN charter. In Somalia, the utter lack of a government as well as inter-clan warfare created a void in power and an obvious humanitarian crisis as refugees, while fleeing the country, unintentionally were impeding assistance efforts. Also, an enduring and far-reaching famine had gripped the country for years accompanying the disastrous collapse of the economy and any resemblance of an organized state. In Kosovo, persecution of an ethnic population at the hands of the same government that had earlier reversed the previous state of autonomy in that nation was the issue at hand. In this case, a void in government was not the problem; rather it was the repression, denial of civil and political freedoms and rights that characterized the governing force. It was deemed that the internal struggles between the Serbs and Kosovars, two groups which constantly dehumanized and discredited each other by reclaiming national myths as their cause, had led the nation to a point where, in the words of David Goldhagen in an article titled “A New Serbia” and appearing in the New Republic Magazine:
Any people that commits such deeds…clearly consists of individuals with damaged faculties of moral judgment and has sunk into a moral abyss from which it is unlikely to emerge unaided.[ii]
The United Nations reaction to the situation in Somalia was to adopt several Resolutions which characterized the Somalian situation as one that was “a threat to international peace and security.” Because of this declaration, it was deemed that the authorization of humanitarian assistance was proper. Resolution 794 declared this to be so:
Recognizing the unique character of the present situation in Somalia and mindful of its deteriorating complex and extraordinary nature…Determining that the magnitude of the human tragedy caused by the conflict in Somalia, further exacerbated by the obstacles being created to the distribution of humanitarian assistance, constitutes a threat to international peace and security.[iii]
After this Resolution was passed, Operation Restore Hope was put into place, marked by many disagreements between the United Nations and the participating forces, as well as many arguments between UN peacekeepers and local Somalians. The UN Secretary General sought to pursue a written out path towards nation building that involved both economic reconstruction and national reconstruction. UNOSOM II forces determined that they wanted to pursue a much more aggressive policy than that suggested by the Secretary General, in their words they did feel they had to be seen as “Good Samaritans.” Because of this attitude of the UNOSOM II forces, which the U.S. representative to the UN declared to be an “unprecedented enterprise,” the troops soon led to even more internal conflict and civil unrest.[iv]
This situation is similar to the current situation in Iraq, as U.S. troops are being attacked and seen as evil despite honest efforts to support and rebuild the nation. In the worst incident, 24 Pakistani peacekeepers were ambushed, in total 56 people were wounded between Pakistanis and Somalians, with 20 killed. In the Somali example, the troops were soon uneasy with their situation, and discords broke out between Italian, French and the Islamic nations who quickly saw the mission losing its intended purpose. Eventually, with the mandate far from fulfilled, the U.S. contingent withdrew its troops and soon after, the UN did the same.[v] Finally the operation was reduced to a standard and traditional peacekeeping mission, only attempting to assist in the political building process in Somalia.
The situation in Kosovo on the other hand was controlled entirely by NATO, with the UN Security Council held at bay. In other words, no official UN authorization was given to the mission that was begun, overseen and ultimately terminated by NATO. The lone move that the UN Security Council made in the Kosovo incident was to enact Resolution 1244 on June 10th, 1999. This Resolution merely stated the end of hostilities and announced that the search for a political solution, based on the general principles agreed upon by both the President of Finland and a Special Representative of the Russian Federation. Resolution 1244 also made it legal for member states and other international organizations to establish a security presence to ensure the success of the political rebuilding process.[vi]
However, when the situation in Kosovo began to appear beyond the point of self-control, it actually was somewhat of a preemptive strike that was made by NATO coalition forces, similar to the Iraqi situation. In February of 1999, the Rambouillet agreement, an Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo, was issued and offered to the leaders presently in power in Kosovo. It stated that there would be wide autonomy for the province within the immediate area, called the FRY. Then, at the end of a three-year period, a review would be done to determine whether the nation was set to self-rule one again. If the agreement were to be accepted by Kosovo’s leaders, it would have authorized NATO forces to patrol and have access to the entire area under FRY’s territory. A warning of the use of force accompanied the discussions over whether or not to accept the Rambouillet agreement. Finally, FRY authorities rejected this accord and the military operation started as a result. The entire Yugoslav territory was covered in the operation. The United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Tony Blair said, “This was a moral cause…we now have a chance to build a new internationalism based on values and the rule of law.”[vii] Not only that, but the operation was also seen as fueled by other geographic and political, as well as strategic factors, of which included NATO’s credibility and ability to re-establish a region which was deemed to be extremely volatile and dangerous to the neighboring regions.
An important distinction to make in the Kosovo incident is the timing and thus the cause of the mass human injustices that took place in the nation. After the operations had begun, an enormous number of refugees sought protection in the neighboring countries, with the intention to flee the persecution brought upon them by Yugoslav authorities. The question is still unanswered whether the human rights nightmare either was a predetermined policy decided upon by Yugoslav authorities, which would then justify NATO’s actions. Or perhaps, if in fact the human rights issue was a result of the NATO troops presence in the area that then may have provoked the Yugoslav’s actions.
The answer to this question is vital if we are to use the Kosovo example to compare it to the Iraqi issue. If the former was true, that Yugoslavian leaders were committing these crimes against their own citizens thus provoking a NATO response, then the U.S. could potentially justify its actions in Iraq. It is well known knowledge that for years Saddam Hussein and his sons brutally tortured and murdered citizens at will, sometimes even using "human shields” to protect Presidential compounds against any potential air strikes. Not only that, but in the early 1990’s there is evidence that early forms of biological weapons were tested by Hussein on his own citizens, as well as neighboring Iranians. Bush has used this information to justify the need for an international response, claiming that as Hussein build even more WMD it was imminent that he would use them again.
In attempting to examine and critique both the Kosovo and Somali operations, the fact that a human catastrophe was developing cannot be overlooked. Not only that, but the operations, similar to the ongoing Iraqi one, incited emotions and passions and in turn, caused much destruction. As we are currently witnessing attempts to build a stable democratic institution in Iraq, we cannot help but to look back and notice that the same goals in the Somali operation, that of political stabilization and democratic institutions has not yet materialized. In Kosovo, the operation is still in its second stage, with little real progress to date.
Also, it is important to realize and emphasize that in both cases a global outcry and general feeling of compassion and/or sympathy helped to propel the actions taken. Similar to the Iraqi situation, the international community was slow to volunteer to respond, due to the encumbering issues of sovereignty and non-intervention. Thus, it is proof that indeed there does remain “Ethical Development in a Global Environment,” that human sensitivity can in fact precipitate the stimulus for international actions. A secondary motive, of either instilling democracy or protecting assets can always be formulated. However, in both the Kosovo and Somali cases, there were widespread media images in magazines, newspapers and on television that drew out the human instinct to help. The sight of starving babies in Somalia or mass graves in Kosovo can lead to demand from a nation’s population to act as human beings and help out a fellow man in need, despite feelings that the nation should be autonomous and handle its own problems.
The far-fetched mandates of the operations of installing democratic institutions, creating a civic society and setting up national reconciliation coincides with or are prerequisites for the enjoyment of human dignity. [viii]
In the case of Iraq, there was little media that displayed injustices by the Hussein regime. Instead, most of the media showed unsuccessful UN inspectors’ attempts to find WMD throughout the Iraqi countryside.
Examining the Kosovo operation further, it should be said that the operation in fact was broken down into two phases, the military phase (phase 1) and the civilian phase (phase 2). While many claim that the military actions were justified and sufficient in protecting lives, it is also widely accepted that this was not the case; that the military was not impartial and instead sought to punish the Serb people as a means of degrading the Serb regime in power. Intentionally or not, it created thousands of refugees and, more importantly, it further stirred the ethnic melting pot in the area that will no doubt be an immense slowdown to any attempts at reconciliation in the area. The civilian stage is still ongoing with the goal to create a civil society; again, this will be slow to fully and effectively complete as a result of the military actions. If the situation in Iraq is to have any measurable level of success then the U.S. and UN needs to make sure it does not handle the civilian stage of the operation as poorly as in Somalia and Kosovo.
United States Domestic Policy:
To the proverbial alien, stepping onto Earth for the first time and asking about various nations’ policies regarding international intervention, the United States’ answer would appear to be a confusing mystery. Although it does indeed have a legal regime set up in this area, perhaps the most complicated on the entire planet, the political culture and demand is somewhat out of sync with that regime. In the Constitution is a framework for declaring war and thus the use of military forces. However, in the history of the United States more than 200 instances of international use of force have occurred, with only five occasions of Congress officially declaring war. Following the Vietnam War the War Powers Resolution was passed which sought to rejoin the President and Congress in declarations of war, and the use of armed intervention. However, since that legislation was passed the forces continue to be used even at a more frequent pace, with only the 1991 Gulf War receiving congressional approval. What then, is the American law?
The setup of who can authorize the use of force in America is specifically made to be complex, thus intended to avoid a dictatorial leader with complete military obedience below him. A mix of constitutional and statutory provisions outlines the basic regime, rendering those who both order and control armed forces accountable to the democratic controls. Throughout the United States’ history discontent has arisen with the system and calls for even more accountability have surfaced. During the post-WWII through the end of the Cold War, those who support enhanced accountability have pointed towards the possibility that units of American armed forces could be called upon automatically by either the United Nations or a similar international alliance. Also during this time, a concern existed in America regarding the decision-making structure of international alliances and organizations. The worry was that if America decided to intervene in an issue, how easily could an international organization such as the UN veto the decision. Following the Vietnam War, political debate on the issue of the authorization of force changed focus, now aiming more towards the extent to which presidential power to make war should be reined in if at all. In other words, what are the circumstances that require a president to gain congressional support and authorization before commanding the use of force?