Gulf War II: Iraq 2003—E-Brief
issued 6 May 2003
Maria Lalic, Information/E-link
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group
Resolution 1441
The UN passed Resolution 1441 on 8 November. It concluded that Iraq
had been and remained 'in material breach of its obligation', particularly
through its failure to fully cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors.
The resolution placed a number demands on Iraq,
the key ones being:
·
that Iraq must declare all details of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD)
·
that Iraq must provide immediate and unconditional access
to the United Nations
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA)
·
and that Iraq
would face serious consequences if it continued to 'violate its obligations'.
In the event of non-compliance, the Resolution did
not authorise the use of force by any one member state. As Mary O'Connell observed, the Resolution states only that 'a meeting
of the Security Council will be the first step upon a report by inspectors
that Iraq has obstructed their
activities. Consequences will follow a meeting'.
The UK Ambassador
to the Security Council stated that
there was no 'automaticity' in this Resolution.
John Negroponte, United
States Permanent Representative to the United Nations said that
the Resolution contained no 'hidden triggers with respect to the use of
force' and 'the matter will return to the Council for discussions'.
In a joint statement
China, Russia
and France noted that the Resolution
did not authorise the use of force and the three countries 'registered
with satisfaction' that the representatives of the United
States and the United Kingdom
were in agreement with this understanding.
Though the resolution was passed unanimously, France,
Russia, and Germany
had a different understanding to the US
and the UK on the process of
disarming Iraq.
On 8 December 2002 the Iraqi Government handed over a
12 000-page
document which Iraq claimed
was a complete account of its chemical, biological, missile and nuclear
programs. Despite the President of the UN Security Council, Colombian
UN Ambassador Alfonso Valdivieso, announcing that
the five permanent members of the Security Council would receive unedited
copies of the document at the same time, the United
States was the first to receive it. Iraq accused the United States
of 'unprecedented blackmail' for obtaining an unedited copy of Iraq's
dossier. The Iraqi
Ministry of Foreign Affairs , said that the 'US
behaviour aims at manipulating UN documents to find cover for aggression
against Iraq'. The President
of the Security Council conceded that he
made the decision after coming under intense pressure from Washington.
The declaration came amid scepticism in Washington and
London that Saddam Hussein
had finally 'come clean' on Iraq's
banned weapons programs. President Bush expressed his concern
about '…Iraq's failure to list all pertinent information in the arms declaration
it submitted recently to the United Nations Security Council, but, according
to White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer,
the President would not act hastily against Iraq'. Colin
Powell said that he did not think that Iraq
would cooperate with demands to disarm. He told
journalists on 18 December 2002 that the Iraqi declaration had gaps
and omissions. Despite this he still said the US
would 'stay within the UN process' to disarm Iraq.
The UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also criticised
the Iraqi declaration, saying it was not 'the full and complete' version
demanded by the UN Security Council.
The US and the UK vantage point was that Iraq
was not disarming quickly enough and was once more up to its 'old tricks'
of deception.
On January 27 2003 Hans
Blix, UNMOVIC Chief Weapons Inspector, delivered a report
on Iraq's compliance to date.
The report stated that Iraq
'has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field'.
However, Blix also indicated there were still some problems with cooperation
in relation to air operations and mild levels of harassment which had
obstructed the inspection process.
The international community was divided in its response
to the report. While France and
Russia claimed it indicated that
progress was being made, the US
and its supporters interpreted it as clear evidence that Iraq
was in defiance of resolution 1441. George
Bush in his State
of the Union Address on 28 February summed up the US
position when the President said, 'The dictator of Iraq
is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving'.
The US promised
that it would present definite evidence of Iraqi defiance of the Security
Council's demands to disarm. In his address
to the Security Council Powell presented
as evidence against Iraq
recorded conversations, satellite images, intercepts of Iraqi military
officers discussions, and an assertion that Saddam
Hussein had barred Iraqi scientists from talking to UN
inspectors. Powell also gave detailed allegations of
possible links between Iraq and
al Qaeda. UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan said that the weapons inspectors would
study the information presented and pursue the links they were given.
The Blix
report presented on 14 February to
the UN Security Council reported that inspectors found no banned chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq,
however, Hans Blix said
'there are continuing doubts about Iraqi's intentions to disarm. More
cooperation from Iraq', he said,
would 'speed up the inspectors work'.
In his report
presented on 7 March, Hans
Blix stated that '…after a period of somewhat reluctant
cooperation, there had been an acceleration of initiatives by Iraq
since the end of January, including an acceptance that its Al-Samoud 2
missiles must be destroyed'. Dr Blix also said that inspectors needed more time
to verify Iraq's compliance.
·
UK,
US and Spain
Soon after the second Blix report the
US and the UK
began to push for a new resolution that would clear the way for military
action against Iraq on the grounds
that Iraq had failed to disarm.
On February 24 the US, the UK
and Spain submitted a draft
resolution to the Security Council. The resolution did not include
deadlines but it stated that Iraq
had failed to take the final opportunity to disarm and as a result it
would 'face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations
of its obligations'. As far as they were concerned Iraq
was simply stalling and it had used up the all its chances. Iraq's
time was up.
The Prime Minister John
Howard supported the US
position. He has consistently presented the notion that 'it is in Australia's
best interest' to support US
policy on Iraq.
In February Mr Howard delivered a Ministerial statement
explaining why the world community had to deal 'decisively with Iraq',
why the matters at stake went to the 'direct credibility of the United
Nations', why the issue was of 'direct concern' to Australia and why the
Australian government had authorised
'the forward positioning of elements of the Australian Defence Force to
the Persian Gulf'.
France,
Germany and Russia
France and Russia,
two of five permanent members of the Security Council with veto powers,
said that they would vote against a draft resolution proposed by the US,
UK and Spain
authorising the use of force against Iraq.
The French President Jacques Chirac
said
that the war on Iraq would lead
to a development of terrorism and will break up the world's anti-terrorist
coalition. Russian Foreign Minister Igor
Ivanov said that the
draft resolution contained impossible demands that contradict Resolution
1441.
France, Germany
and Russia offered a counter-proposal
which was presented as a memorandum. The memorandum called for continuing inspections
and for aerial surveillance of Iraq
and 'full and effective' disarmament of Iraq
to be achieved 'peacefully through the inspection regime'. They argued
that more time was needed for the weapons inspectors to complete their
job.
After failing to win
five of the six undecided votes needed for approval of
the draft resolution, US President George Bush, British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and Portugal's Prime
Minister Jose Durao Barroso held
talks in the Azores on 16 March to discuss how best to get Iraq to
disarm as required by the United Nations. None of the uncommitted nations
was invited to the summit. The leaders of these four countries gave the
UN until 17 March to authorise the use of force against Iraq
or they would do so on their own.
On 17 March the UK,
the US and Spain declared
that they would not pursue a vote on a draft resolution
and that they reserved the right to take their own steps to secure Iraq's
disarmament.
On 17 March 2003 United States President George
W. Bush gave Saddam
Hussein an ultimatum. Either Saddam Hussein and his sons left Iraq
within 48 hours or the United States
would pursue military action against Iraq.
Saddam Hussein flatly
rejected the US ultimatum.
Operation Iraqi
Freedom began on 20 March 2003. Operation Iraqi
Freedom began. The Coalition
forces launched an attack against 'targets of military importance'. In
a televised
address George Bush
described the action as an operation '… to disarm Iraq,
to free its people and to free the world from grave danger'. US ground
forces moved in from the south to secure the main port at Umm Qasr
and Iraq's second biggest city Basra. In both cities the Coalition forces
were faced with much resistance and the initial belief of a quick campaign
to 'Shock and Awe' by scaring the
enemy to death was over optimistic.
Three weeks into the campaign, the Coalition troops have moved into Baghdad
and despite some initial difficulties, have secured supply lines. Capturing
the port of Umm Qasr has allowed humanitarian
aid to enter in large quantities into Iraq.
UK troops have control of Basra.
Kirkuk is in the hands of US-backed Kurdish fighters.
On 17 March the Government effectively
committed Australian troops to the US-led campaign without the backing
of the UN. The Prime Minister made a formal
announcement on 20 March telling the nation that the war was right,
lawful and in Australia's national interest.
The Leader of the Opposition expressed
Labor's opposition to the war saying that Australia's
involvement would isolate Australia
and it would make the country a target for international terrorism.
Turkey
and Kurdish question
Turkey wanted to send its own
troops into northern Iraq to
prevent a refugee crisis and keep an eye on Kurdish rebels who may want
to create an independent state, something the Turks oppose.
Turkey fears that the creation
of a Kurdish independent state, or even providing arms to Kurds in northern
Iraq, will create problems, such
as separatist attacks, within its own borders. Turkish forces have fought
a bloody war with Kurdish separatists for decades.
These internal issues drove the Turkish Parliament's decision not
to allow US troops to be based in Turkey and consequently to forfeiting
$5 billion
in aid and $10 billion in loans that were offered by the US.
With northern Iraqi towns Mosul and Kirkuk falling to the control of Kurdish forces the Turkish
government reaffirmed
its readiness to invade Iraq and protect its borders. If that were
to occur it could ignite a 'war within a war', something Washington
fears would undermine
its operation in Iraq.
This has come from both the regular Iraqi forces and 'irregulars'. US
and British troops have encountered fierce
fighting in Nasiriyah and Basra. There have
been ambushes on supply lines and suicide bomber attacks. This has frustrated
the coalition advance and slowed down the delivery of humanitarian aid.
There were
reports of Iraqi security and irregular forces targeting civilians
to prevent their own people from surrendering to the coalition.
As at 30 April US combat-related
deaths so far numbered 134, compared with 148 in the 43-day 1991 Persian
Gulf War. Four Americans are missing. The British lost 32 troops.
At least 13 US marines and five
British soldiers have been killed in friendly fire incidents and questions
are still being asked whether the US
has done enough to avoid such deaths.
The exact numbers of Iraqi civilian deaths are not known. The International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) warned Iraqi hospitals are overwhelmed
by large numbers of wounded people
brought in for treatment.
The Red Cross has reminded the US
of its obligation under the Geneva Convention to protect civilians and
minimise casualties. It has also protested
against the use of munition bombs in heavily populated areas.
On 7 April after receiving 'credible information' that Saddam
Hussein and his sons were having a meeting at a restaurant
in an upmarket suburb of Baghdad Mansour, coalition
forces dropped four 900 kg bombs in an aerial assassination attempt. The
Iraqi authorities claimed that at least nine people died and four buildings
were destroyed. There has been no confirmation of whether Saddam
Hussein is dead
or alive. What was certain was that Saddam no
longer
had any control in the major Iraqi cities. This was reflected in the
widespread looting occurring in Basra and Baghdad. It will be a priority
for the coalition troops to restore civil order as soon as possible.
'The good news is
Iraq is ours. The bad news is … Iraq is ours'(1)
As at 5 May, despite some claims, no
weapons of mass destruction have been found. Mr
Howard said
that weapons had been hidden or had been taken out of Iraq
and it would be impossible to find any hard evidence of weapons’ existence
until the hostilities have ceased. The weapons search is critical for
the coalition which went to war claiming that Iraq
possessed large arsenals of chemical and biological weapons and could
pass them to terrorists. The failure by the Allies to find WMD will add
to sceptical opinions
about the true reasons for their motives for going to war.
US Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld
said
that the US would have to rely on captured Iraqi
officials to disclose the existence of banned weapons as there was
little chance that weapons would be found independently.
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans
Blix claimed that the US
and the UK used shaky intelligence,
including forged documents, in an effort to prove that Iraq
had banned weapons. Blix said that the US
tried to undermine the inspectors work in Iraq.
Now with President Bush declaring that combat
operations were officially over, the US are using inspectors from
the US, Australia and Britain to search for any biological or nuclear
weapons. However, some members of the Security Council say UN inspectors
should be the ones to verify any new discoveries to prevent accusations
of US fabrication that WMD exist
and bring credibility to the inspections.
Reconstructing Iraq
and keeping the peace could be more difficult than the war itself. In
the immediate short-term Saddam Hussein
will be replaced by George Bush
in administering Iraq and the
US President has specific
obligations under International law to look after the welfare of the
Iraqi people.
The popular view is that the US
should hand over power to the UN which would supervise a slow but steady
process of reconstruction. At a summit
in St Petersburg, Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac called for a central role for the UN in rebuilding Iraq.
However, the US
favoured model of installing essentially a puppet government seems
the more likely outcome as the US
appears to want to turn Iraq
into significant strategic asset for the US
in the Middle East. The US and Britain
say that the UN should play a 'vital' role in rebuilding Iraq
but its role had not been defined. Paul
Wolfowitz US Deputy Defense
Secretary told
the US Senate Armed Services Committee that the United Nations 'can't
be in charge'. Britain
has argued for a central UN role in post-war Iraq
but Washington wants the UN role to be limited to humanitarian
aid.
The challenge for the US
is to win the hearts and mind of people both inside Iraq
and the wider region. To succeed, the US
must not only provide coordinated humanitarian aid and meet its obligations
under the Geneva Convention, but the reconstruction process must be as
generously resourced as the fighting.
- David Letterman, Late Show, 10 April 2003, Channel 9.
Useful links:
Is War on Iraq Legal? - Columbia
Law School, Global
Policy Forum
Forces in the Gulf - ABC
(Australia), CNN
Iraq-Official Texts - United
States Department of State, Speech
and Transcript Centre
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to
Members of Parliament.
Back to main
|
