|
The UNSCOM role in the hostile policy The preparation for the aggression The principle of not to threat or use force The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states |
US-UK military aggression against Iraq (16-20 December 1998) The United States of America and the United Kingdom launched a large-scale military aggression against Iraq on 16-20 December 1998, during which they fired 425 medium range Cruise missiles and carried out more than 600 air raids by operational aircraft stationed on the American and British aircraft carriers in the Gulf and from the Kuwaiti air bases. The military aggression targeted industrial infrastructures, military sites, security sites, communication nodes, strategic sites and civilian institutions. The aggression has resulted in heavy material and human losses.This aggression has aroused a broad debate in the international community, particularly on the legitimacy of the use of force by two permanent members of the Security Council without any authorization from the Council and in a manner that contradicts the concept of the collective security and the authority of the Security Council in this respect. This paper seeks to highlight the following: First, this aggression is a phase of a continued policy pursued by the United States and the United Kingdom towards Iraq since 1991. This policy is based on the threat and the actual use of force. Second, the main objective of this continued hostile policy is to topple the patriotic regime in Iraq and to replace it with an agent regime that serves their strategic interests in the region. Third, the pretexts and objectives used to launch the aggression have no relation with the resolutions of the Security Council, but rather they represent a violation of these resolutions and of their obligations under these resolutions. They also constitute a flagrant violation of the principles of the UN Charter and the established rules of international law, namely the principles of not to threat or use of force, non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states and the sovereign equality. Fourth, The actions taken by Iraq to confront this illegal hostile policy represent a legitimate policy which is guaranteed by the Charter and is in line with international law. Thus, this Iraq's policy should receive the support of all good forces in the world. The following are evidence and proofs of the foregoing: gotop First: The continued hostile policy The two states proceeded, immediately after the suspension of the military hostilities on 28 March 1991, with actions involving the threat to use force and they actually used force before and after the official declaration of the cease-fire under resolution 687 as follows: The United States of America and the United Kingdom have committed the following acts of aggression against Iraq: a. On 8 March 1992, the US forces bombarded the third sector of air-defences with Cruise missiles. b. On 17 January 1993, the American forces bombarded Al-Nida’ Civilian Establishment with Cruise missiles, resulting in heavy material and human losses. c. On 7 April 1991, the United States of America imposed, with the participation of Britain and France (France withdrew from the operation in September 1996) a no-fly-zone over northern Iraq, to the north of parallel 36, by armed force. This action is unilateral, illegal and illegitimate decision which has nothing to do with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. d. On 17 April 1991, the American President, George Bush, decided to send air and ground forces from the coalition states to northern Iraq. In the implementation of that, the coalition members established an air-field in the Iraqi town city of Sarsang, which was used to transport their forces and to ship their equipment directly to the region. e. On 27 August 1992, the United States of America imposed, with the participation of Britain and France, another no-fly-zone on southern Iraq, to the south of parallel 32, which was subsequently extended to parallel 33. These no-fly-zones are not based on any resolution of the Security Council. f. On 27 June 1993, the American forces bombarded the Iraqi Intelligence Service with Cruise missiles. This aggression resulted in the martyrdom of a number of innocent civilians. g. On 3 and 4 September 1996, the American forces committed a new military aggression against Iraq, in which it used Cruise missiles against military and civilian sites throughout Iraq, particularly in Baghdad, the Capital. To justify these acts of aggression, the US administration has invoked flimsy pretexts, as the enforcement of compliance by Iraq with the resolutions of the Security Council, while this administration, itself, obstructs the legal and proper implementation of these resolutions. Rather, what this administration calls for, through the statements made by the American officials, fully contradicts the letter and spirit of the Security Council resolutions on Iraq. The American officials' statements which demonstrate the American hostile approach are not hidden after their continuous disclosures by the media. These are some examples of those statements which have been recently made: 1. On 26 June 1997, the Washington Post published a report which was also broadcast by ABC, confirming that the US government has been pursuing official policies towards Iraq, which are based on intervention in its internal affairs and deliberately taking actions aimed at threatening and endangering its national security. 2. On 26 June 1997, the Washington Post reported that Warren Mariek, the former CIA officer, said that he did all he could think of and all permissible to topple President Saddam Hussein. 3. On 14 November 1997, the American President, Bill Clinton, declared that he decided to sent USS George Washington to the Gulf within the American military preparations for launching a new aggression against Iraq. 4. On 14 November 1997, AFP reported from Washington that the American President confirmed that (the sanctions will remain in place as long as President Saddam Hussein remains in power). 5. On 21 May 1998, Thomas Pekering, the Undersecretary of State, made a statement in the joint meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations and Natural Resources Committees, saying that the American policy towards Iraq aimed at keeping the embargo on it. 6. On 18 June 1998, Reuters published a report written by its corespondent, Carol Giacomo, on the seminar which Martin Indyk, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and North Africa, held for the regional journalists, where he said that the United States was planning with those he named the (73) groups outside Iraq for a new effort financed by the Congress in order to augment the political opposition, as he alleged, to President Saddam Hussein. 7. In July 1998, the US Congress passed Iraq Liberation Act and allocated US$ 97 million for that end. 8. On 29 July 1998, Martin Indyk, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and North Africa, said at a hearing session of the Foreign Relations Committee that "the US government has developed a programme, through resources obtained from the Congress, to provide open help to the Iraqi opposition. Saddam should leave. The United States has long expressed its interest in dealing with a government replacing Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. We have developed a programme using the resources obtained from the Congress to help the democratic opposition to Saddam Hussein. We will encourage a unified position of joint objectives. These resources will be used to develop the basic skills and to encourage coalition within the opposition." gotop The UNSCOM role in the hostile policy One of the means on which the United States and Britain relied in their hostile policies against Iraq, is to use the UNSCOM which is entrusted with the implementation of section-C of resolution 687 (1991) concerning disarming Iraq of mass destruction weapons. The aggression has made it clear before the entire world that the UNSCOM is a tool to implement the scheme of the American and British hostile policies against Iraq, through manufacturing a crisis enabling these two states to allege that Iraq is not in compliance with its obligations under the resolutions of the Security Council with a view to keeping the embargo on Iraq and to act individually with the armed force to achieve their objective, namely to change the patriotic government of Iraq. The assessment of the work carried out between Iraq and the UNSCOM during the past eight years will undoubtedly show that Iraq has fulfilled all its obligations under the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. But the Security Council did not conduct any objective assessment of what has been done and these two states has obstructed recently the Secretary-General's proposal to conduct a comprehensive review. Moreover, the Security Council has never made any initiative to lift or even ease the sanctions imposed on Iraq, as provided for in the resolutions themselves. The information disclosed by one of the most prominent elements of the UNSCOM, the American inspector Scott Riter, has confirmed the dishonesty of UNSCOM in the performance of its international tasks entrusted to it by the Security Council. What blatantly proves this fact, is the way with which the UNSCOM and its Executive Chairman have acted recently in the course of the preparation for the comprehensive review which the Security Council intended to conduct in the implementation of the Secretary-General's proposal to lift the economic embargo on Iraq as a first step towards the comprehensive lifting of the embargo.gotop The preparation for the aggression The United States and the United Kingdom have obstructed deliberately the proper implementation of the Secretary-General's proposal to conduct the comprehensive review and emptied it of its content through the introduction of many ambiguous procedural formulas into the course of implementation so that the situation will not lead eventually to the lifting of the embargo. This American and British policy has continued simultaneously with the concentration of the military forces in the region and the escalation of threat to use force against Iraq. Here we particularly refer to the remarks made by the American President on Iraq on 15 November 1998 when he openly demanded to change the patriotic and legitimate government of Iraq, saying "In recent years we have enhanced our commitment to the forces of change in Iraq and started the operation of Free Iraq Radio all over the country. We will intensify these efforts through working with the Congress to implement Iraq Liberation Act which has been endorsed recently." On 16 November 1998, the spokesman of US State Department, James Robin, emphasized US administration’s insistence on this hostile policy affairs by saying "Now we concentrate our efforts on the provision of political support for the opposition. The Congress gave us the mandate and funds to arm the opposition. What we try to do is to commit ourselves to the opposition groups more deeply, work with the Congress on some ideas they have and to unite our activities.” He also pointed out that what the American President said “represents the identification of the ways, including the containment policy. These ways include the importance of maintaining the no-fly-zones, keeping the severest sanctions in history and the intensive work with the opposition.” Moreover, Martin Indyk, Assistant Secretary of State for Middle East, said “The United States wants first to help the Iraqi opposition organize its ranks. It wishes to avoid any premature operation. We do not want to proceed with a premature operation which might result in the killing of many people and be ineffective. We have experienced this in the past and we do not want to repeat it.” “Arming the Iraqi opposition comes within the framework of long run efforts.” he added. In his response to a question by Hayat Newspaper on 25 November 1998, the UN Secretary-General confirmed this by saying "what certain governments want to undertake is not in the resolutions of the Security Council." The understanding between Iraq and the United Nations on 14 November 1998 to resume the cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA has foiled the American and British plans to launch a new military aggression against Iraq in November 1998. After that, the statements made by senior American officials have disclosed that the real intentions of the US administration are not to implement the resolutions of the Security Council, as the administration was claiming over the period of concentration of its military forces, but rather to kill civilian population and to destroy the industrial, defensive and security infrastructures of Iraq in order to destabilize the internal situation and change the patriotic government of Iraq. Hence, UNSCOM role came. Instead of recognizing Iraq's cooperation which would pave the way for the comprehensive review, UNSCOM fixed the contrary so that the United States and Britain could launch their armed aggression against Iraq. On 15 December 1998, Richard Butler, the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, presented to the Secretary-General his report, which was used by the United States and Britain to justify their aggression against Iraq, on the work of UNSCOM's teams for the period from 17 November to 13 December 1998 in order to show the extent of Iraq's cooperation with UNSCOM so that the Secretary-General could confirm the cooperation in order to proceed with the comprehensive review. For the same purpose, the IAEA Director-General, submitted on 14 December 1998, his report on the same matter. The Secretary-General presented the two reports to the Security Council, indicating the fundamental differences between them and proposing alternatives for actions to be taken by the Council. It is noteworthy that the UNSCOM report was characterized by flagrant characteristics which we summarize as follows: * The UNSCOM report was full of lies, and falsified the facts. It involved negative and tendentious conclusions about Iraq's cooperation. It also marginalized the role of the Secretary-General in assessing the cooperation between Iraq and UNSCOM and the IAEA. * The Executive Chairman of UNSCOM withdrew the personnel working in the Commission's headquarters in Baghdad, few hours after the submission of his report without any authorization of the Security Council or the Secretary-General and without consulting them. This represents a challenge to the Security Council and its authority. It is noteworthy that the Executive Chairman has taken such an action twice within 6 weeks, although the Security Council criticized him for such tendentious conduct in early November and requested him to turn to the Council before taking such an action. * The UNSCOM report fully contradicts what has been shown by the IAEA Director-General that Iraq has provided the required and active cooperation with the IAEA inspectors over the said period. It is noteworthy that a number of inspections has been conducted by joint teams of UNSCOM and the IAEA. * The Iraqi concerned authorities have actively cooperated with UNSCOM inspection teams in all their activities, and dealt, in a responsible manner, with the provocative attempts in order not to give an opportunity to those who want to create crises and to use them as pretexts to commit an aggression against Iraq. * The practices of UNSCOM and its Chairman have proven once again that UNSCOM is a tool in the hands of the United States of America, implementing the American hostile policy. They also demonstrate the determination of America and Britain to act individually in defiance of the authority of the Security Council and to marganalize the role of the Secretary-General. While it was planned to discuss the reports of the Secretary-General, UNSCOM and the IAEA by the Security Council on 16 December 1998, the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom informed the Council that their governments used the armed force against Iraq to attack the programmes of mass destruction weapons in Iraq with a view to preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors because of Iraq's non-cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA. They alleged that the main objective of the use of the armed force was to ensure Iraq's compliance with its obligations under the resolutions of the Security Council. The two governments alleged that they were authorized by the resolutions of the Security Council to use the armed force against Iraq. The least one could say is that the party which is authorized to assess the reports of UNSCOM and the IAEA on Iraq's cooperation and to take decision thereof, is the Security Council, rather than the unilateral political position of one or two states of the permanent members of the Council. As regards the allegation that they are authorized by the relevant resolutions of the Council to use force, this allegation has no basis at all. The most important point in this respect is that paragraph 33 of resolution 687 stipulated that upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions contained in the resolution, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990). This has been achieved by the Iraq's acceptance of that resolution. The resolution was also clear in indicating that any future actions against Iraq within the framework of implementing the provisions of the resolution, should be taken under a new resolution. Paragraph 34 of the resolution, which is the last one, reads as follows: "Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of this resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." Thus, it is legally clear that the use of force has become invalid by Iraq's acceptance of resolution 687 on which a formal cease-fire was established. Therefore, it is legally unreasonable that the authorization to use force remains in force under the formal cease-fire. Accordingly, any military action against Iraq cannot be legally justified unless a new authorization is issued by the Security Council. This legal understanding was emphasized in the Security Council during the consultations which led to the adoption of resolution 1205 (1998) on 5 November 1998. The United States and the United Kingdom sought to include a provision authorizing the use of force without returning to the Council in the draft resolution. But this endeavor did not receive the support of the Council, and the resolution contained a provision which put a definite end to any allegation about the existence of such an authorization. Paragraph 6 of the resolution reads as follows: "Decides, in accordance with its primary responsibility under the Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security, to remain actively seized of the matter." The clarity of the legal responsibility bore by the United States and the United Kingdom provokes a very important political aspect for the current stage in international relations. It is known that the basic rule on which the UN Charter has been based after the World War II, is the collective security system in which the five permanent members bear a special responsibility for the maintenance of world peace and security. The unilateral American and British aggression, without any authorization from the concerned party in accordance with the collective security system, namely the Security Council, represents a full blowing up of that system. This blowing up creates a dangerous international political vacuum that contributes to the maintenance of the logic of unjust force with a complete separation from the logic of right and law demonstrated by the UN Charter. The acts of threat and actual use of force by the United States and the United Kingdom flagrantly violate many established principles and rules of international law, as follows: gotop The principle of not to threat or use force Paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter reads: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." This prohibition is considered as the cornerstone in the international order established by the UN Charter, and it has been recognized as an absolute jure cogent which cannot be violated whatsoever. The United States and the United Kingdom have flagrantly violated the conventional and consensual obligations incurred on the basis of this principle by their resort to the threat and the actual use of force against the territorial integrity and independence of another state, namely Iraq, through the following: a. Aerial and naval military attack against the territory of Iraq. b. Hundreds of thousands of violations by the American war planes of the Iraqi skies and the imposition of the two no-fly-zones on northern and southern Iraq. c. Pursuing a consonant and declared policy to use force in order to change the patriotic government of Iraq. d. Launching aggression and the continued threat to use armed force. The use or threat to use armed force against Iraq without authorization from the Security Council constitutes an aggression in accordance with the decision no. 3314 taken by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1974 on the Definition of Aggression, which is undoubtedly considered as a part of international tradition which has been recognized by the majority of the states of the world as well as by international jurisprudence. The American violation of the rules of international law is also confirmed on the basis of Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States which was unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly with its decision 2625 of 24 November 1970, and which was considered by the International Court of Justice, in its decision concerning the case of Nicaragua against the United States of America in 1986, as a codification of the rules of international law which is obligatory to all states. In this respect, the Declaration provides for: "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States. Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-determination. Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or instigating civil war or terrorist acts in another state ." gotop 2.The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states The principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states is considered as a conventional principle which is internationally recognized, particularly when the use of force is the means of interference. The international Court of Justice has defined, in its judgment on Nicaragua case, the principle on non-interference as follows: "The non-intervention principle includes the right of every sovereign state to dispose its affairs without foreign interference. The respect for the territorial sovereignty among states is essential basis of international relations. International law imposes the respect for political integrity." The Court also noted that this principle has been contained in many declarations adopted by international organizations and conferences, including the following: - Non-permission of intervention in the internal affairs of other states adopted by the UN General Assembly's decision 2131 of 1965. - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice considers the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, which interprets the principles of the UN Charter, as a source of obligation. The Declaration includes "No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law." "No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in another State." "The use of force to deprive peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and the of the principle of non-intervention." "Every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State." gotop 3. The principle of sovereign equality of States In addition to being a firm conventional rule, the principle of sovereign equality of State has been confirmed by Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which reads: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States includes a broad interpretation of this principles as follows: "All States enjoy sovereign equality. They have equal rights and duties and are equal members of the international community, notwithstanding differences of an economic, social, political or other nature." This principle includes the following elements: 1. States are judicially equal. 2. Each State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty. 3. Each State has the duty to respect the personality of other States. 4.The territorial integrity and political independence of the State are inviolable. 5. Each State has the right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems. 6. Each State has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other States. It is known that the resolutions of the Security Council on Iraq have emphasized recurrently the respect for Iraq's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence, as an obligatory legal duty emanating from the fact that those resolutions have been adopted under chapter IIV of the UN Charter. On this basis, the hostile actions and practices of the United States and the United Kingdom against Iraq constitute serious material breaches of the principle of equal sovereignty since they are aimed at controlling Iraq politically and economically by the use of force. Consequently, they are actions directed against the legitimate government of Iraq. They also constitute violations of the resolutions of the Security Council themselves. These American and British actions and practices aim to achieve plain political objectives. The allegations by the United States and the United Kingdom that these actions and practices are designed to force Iraq to implement the relevant resolutions of the Security Council are, in fact, mere fabrications through which the two states try to create pretexts to justify their aggression against Iraq and their blatant interference in its internal affairs. While we appeal to all Members States of the United Nations to condemn these American and British hostile actions and practices against Iraq, we call upon the Security Council to bear its responsibility under the UN Charter and demand the United States of America and the United Kingdom to refrain from such actions against Iraq and its people and from threatening its security, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Republic of Iraq reserves, of course, its full right, within the framework of international responsibility, to bear the United States of America and the United Kingdom full international responsibility, in its both criminal aspect, since they have committed a crime against peace, and civilian aspect which concerns compensation of material, human and moral losses. gotop |
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
