The United Nations, the United States, and
Iraq:
Are we going to war?
Cristina
Correa
ENGR
297B
Stanford
University
March
17, 2003
This paper was originally written over a week before the due date. As it was edited, events unfolded that may not be reflected in the following paragraphs. Printing the paper for final submittal, I can’t help but feel that it is not finished. Today seems to be a pivotal moment in the conflict with Saddam Hussein.
Iraq is located in Western Asia, between Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Iran. 95 percent of its 23 million inhabitants are Muslim, with a 5 percent Christian minority. The official language of the State is Islam while ethnically the population is made up of Arabs, Kurds, Aramaic, and Azerbajanes.
Between 1534 and 1918, Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. Afterwards, it was occupied by the British, until its independence in 1930. In 1958, the monarchy in place was overthrown and the Republic was established. In 1963, the Baas party assumed power until Saddam Hussein’s election in 1979. Between 1980 and 1988 the Iran-Iraq war ensued. Further turmoil followed when Hussein’s dictatorship invaded Kuwait in 1990, thus originating the Gulf War. The United States reacted by launching Operation Desert Storm, between January 17 and February 29, 1991, with the support of Egypt, Syria, Morocco, and other Arab States. The end of the war was marked by Kuwait’s liberation, the instatement of international sanctions on Iraq, and the implementation of an embargo on that has proven devastating to the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein, on his part, has resorted to repressing all types of opposition (including, among others, Kurds and Shiites). The result is a tense relationship between Baghdad and the United Nations.
From an economic standpoint, Iraq holds significant power because it is the second country in the world in oil reserves. Members of the UN Security Council that support military intervention see this approach as a way to keep Hussein from threatening to gain control of other countries in the Gulf and thus their oil. These countries want to protect oil deposits in the Arabian Peninsula while keeping Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction. By removing Saddam Hussein from power and implementing a democratic regime in Iraq, the United States also aims to eradicate what it considers to be a terrorist-harboring State.
Dissenting opinions in the UN Security Council have risen from the fact that those opposing military intervention believe there is not enough proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, or of links with terrorists organizations, within Iraq. Although these countries also oppose Hussein’s dictatorial regime, they believe that armed confrontation is not necessary and that there may be more appropriate methods of modifying the sociopolitical atmosphere in Iraq. The consequences of a war on an already devastated population, and the destabilization of the entire oil-rich region, are then considered worse than the benefits of intervention.
As of March 11, 2003, the UN Security Council was divided into three. The two main opinions were represented by those that are in favor of using military force against Iraq (USA, Great Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria) and those that were against an attack on Hussein (France, Germany, Russia, China, and Syria). The third group was comprised of Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan. For a war resolution to be adopted, it must be approved by nine out of these fifteen countries without veto from any of the permanent Council members.
The United States considers that it does not need permission from the UN to attack and disarm Iraq in order to ensure a change of political regime in that country. Presently, President Bush’s aim is to obtain the necessary nine votes. This will put France and Russia in a difficult spot to veto the decision. It seems paradoxical that one country’s veto would render nine other countries’ votes invalid. Regardless, it is not the United States’ role to question UN policies at this time.
I believe that diplomatic negotiation is the only way to solve conflicts of this magnitude and avoid war. The UN is in the position to provide a forum for such negotiation among countries. The organization was founded after World War II, an event that caused death to millions of innocent people. Avoiding the recurrence of such events is exactly its function. The permanent members of its Security Council represent those countries that were victorious during the Second World War and experienced its atrocities firsthand. These countries that are so proud of the democratic legitimacy of their governments should accept the Council’s resolutions to avoid a possibly disastrous conflict. Furthermore, undermining the Council’s resolution would set a precedent for other countries to act unilaterally, which could result in additional confrontations.
I am not sure if my family shares all my opinions, especially since my parents both voted for George W. and Jeb (we’re Florida residents). I do know that they do not consider armed confrontations to be a solution. We are Colombian and have experienced our share of sociopolitical unrest. During conversations at the dinner table, a salient opinion is that President Bush wants to finish what his father started and gain control of a significant source of oil. The economic aspect of the impending war seems to make it a more delicate issue, with new stakes to consider. The Bush family’s long history of involvement in the oil industry should not be disregarded, in my opinion.
Sources of Information
Numbers, dates, and other such specific data included in the paper, were obtained from the internet. In each case, a number of sources were checked to ensure reliability. Other arguments and statements have resulted from personal conversations with informed acquaintances or from media sources, in particular National Public Radio (KQED) and El Tiempo (Colombian newspaper).