UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL AND GLOBAL CRISIS MANAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY OF THE UNITED STATES INVASION OF IRAQ, 1991-2008

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of the Iraq conflict cannot be finished until the roles performed by two key actors—the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the United States of America (USA)—have been de-mythified (Cook, 2022). After the globe endured the devastation of two horrific global wars, the leaders of the world put into motion mechanisms to prevent a repeat recurrence. According to Egbmuche- Okeke (2008:48), the United Nations Organization was created on October 24, 1945, with the primary purpose being the maintenance of international peace and security. This objective has remained unchanged from the organization's inception (Erdmann, 2021).

On the other side, following the so-called 'cold war era,' the United States emerged victorious, while its adversary, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), was broken up into its constituent parts. According to Krauthammer (2002:5), "shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was evident that the world we had known for half a century was evaporating..." In other words, the world that we had been familiar with for the previous fifty years was coming to an end. I proposed to them that we had already entered what is known as the "unipolar movement...

Therefore, the United Nations system of international organization, which arose after 1945, was in significant respects the result of American idealism, imagination, and political inventiveness. This is because of the fact that the United States led the way in the creation of the United Nations. Others made steps away from old forms of international anarchy not only because they thought that the United States was powerful, but also because they believed that the United States was right. These people read our cues, embraced our visions, and followed our example (Hay, 2022).

Since the United Nations was first conceived of and conceived of by the United States, it should not come as a surprise that the United States exploits the platform provided by the United Nations in order to attain or promote her national interests. However, the condition described above is contributing to increased levels of insecurity throughout the world. This is due to the fact that countries who do not adhere to Western ideals and the influence of the United States regard this as dominance and an incursion on their sovereignty. These countries, in an effort to safeguard their national interests, engage in activities that are illegal and unethical according to the standards established at the international level. For example, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was motivated by its desire to seize control of a considerable quantity of oil resource; if her aggressiveness had been left uncontrolled, she would have been the country that exported the most oil. A stance that is designed to give Iraq control over the United States of America and her allies (Cook, 2022).

As a direct consequence of this, Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait by forces headed by the United States and operating under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. In 2003, the United States of America and her coalition of the willing went to war with Iraq with the objectives of, among other things, bringing about a change in the regime, establishing a military base in Iraq, and gaining control of Iraq and Iraq's oil supplies (Erdmann, 2021).

Evaluation of the Iraq conflict cannot be finished until the roles performed by two key actors—the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the United States of America (USA)—have been de-mythified (Cook, 2022).

After the globe endured the devastation of two horrific global wars, the leaders of the world put into motion mechanisms to prevent a repeat recurrence. According to Egbmuche- Okeke (2008:48), the United Nations Organization was created on October 24, 1945, with the primary purpose being the maintenance of international peace and security. This objective has remained unchanged from the organization's inception (Erdmann, 2021).

On the other side, following the so-called 'cold war era,' the United States emerged victorious, while its adversary, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), was broken up into its constituent parts. According to Krauthammer (2002:5), "shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was evident that the world we had known for half a century was evaporating..." In other words, the world that we had been familiar with for the previous fifty years was coming to an end. I proposed to them that we had already entered what is known as the "unipolar movement...

Therefore, the United Nations system of international organization, which arose after 1945, was in significant respects the result of American idealism, imagination, and political inventiveness. This is because of the fact that the United States led the way in the creation of the United Nations. Others made steps away from old forms of international anarchy not only because they thought that the United States was powerful, but also because they believed that the United States was right. These people read our cues, embraced our visions, and followed our example (Hay, 2022).

Since the United Nations was first conceived of and conceived of by the United States, it should not come as a surprise that the United States exploits the platform provided by the United Nations in order to attain or promote her national interests. However, the condition described above is contributing to increased levels of insecurity throughout the world. This is due to the fact that countries who do not adhere to Western ideals and the influence of the United States regard this as dominance and an incursion on their sovereignty. These countries, in an effort to safeguard their national interests, engage in activities that are illegal and unethical according to the standards established at the international level. For example, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was motivated by its desire to seize control of a considerable quantity of oil resource; if her aggressiveness had been left uncontrolled, she would have been the country that exported the most oil. A stance that is designed to give Iraq control over the United States of America and her allies (Cook, 2022).

As a direct consequence of this, Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait by forces headed by the United States and operating under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. In 2003, the United States of America and her coalition of the willing went to war with Iraq with the objectives of, among other things, bringing about a change in the regime, establishing a military base in Iraq, and gaining control of Iraq and Iraq's oil supplies (Erdmann, 2021).

In this study we shall examine those factors that mould the behavior of the United States and these impacts on the United Nations Security Council in the area of conflict management.

1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The coming together of many nations aimed at achieving their various national interests in the form of security, political and socio-economic emancipation is expected to usher in peace and security in the international arena. Despite this, the international community is still bedeviled with insecurity as manifested in inter and intra state conflicts all over the world.

It is the duty of United Nations, through the Security Council to curtail and mange these conflicts to avoid escalation. More s, the unipolar nature of she international system makes United States the most powerful nations in the system with pervasive influence that is almost unstoppable in the United Nations Security Council.

Subsequently, many nations accused the United states of manipulating the United Nations Security Council to achieve her national interests. The disequilibrium caused by the United States interests, especially in the Middle East and Arab world is being resisted. The resistance has triggered off widespread insecurity in the international system in the form of states sponsored terrorism, proliferation of weapon of mass destruction (WMD). This situation the United Nations Security council can not handle along promoting the intervention of the United States. In the guise to police the orchestrated situation, the United States pursues her national interest as witnessed in the Persian Gulf particularly in Iraq.

Moreover, in pursuance of her national interests United States uses the UN platform as long as it suits her but the reverse is the case when it does not suit her Kennedy (2002:2-3) lamented that; the overall impression that America has given of late is that we simply don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. When we require assistance in rounding up terrorists, freezing financial assets and making air bases available for U.S troops, we play with the team; when we don’t like international schemes, we’ll walk away.

The issue, mostly over looked in the literature is that the economic, political, ideological and socio-cultural polices of United States are embedded in her major national interest which is ‘perpetuation of capitalist values. To problematize this gap in the literature for consequent analysis the following questions are posed.

1. Is there any link the US invasion of Iraq her Middle East policy?

2. Did the invasions of Iraq by the US correspond with the interest of the United Nations Security Council?

3. Is there any link between the non-use of veto to stop the US invasion of Iraq and international conspiracy among members of the Security Council?

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The broad objective of the stud is to interrogate the role of United Nations Security Council in conflict management using the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1991and subsequent U.S invasion of Iraq as specific case studies.

The specific objective of the research study are as follows;

1. To examine whether there is a link between the US invasion of Iraq and the Middle East policy.

2. To interrogate whether there are areas of convergence of interest between the United States and the United Nation. Security Council in the Middle East.

3. To investigate whether there is a link between the non-use of veto to stop the United States invasion of Iraq and international conspiracy among he Security Council members.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

The significance of this study is two fold. First, it has theoretical significance and secondly, practical relevance. The theoretical importance of the study is that it will add to the frontiers of knowledge on the issue under discursion. Also, students of social sciences and political science n particular will have added resources base from which to study and discover what transpired in the Iraq conflict, the role of United Nation Security Council played and the involvement of the United States. It will also add to the pools of literature in the area under study; and further and further research in Middle Ease studies.

On the practical relevance, this study will equip policy makers and diplomats with necessary working tools to face the demanding challenges of ever dynamic international system with a view of reducing global conflicts. It will also assist member states of the United Nations in the onerous task of trading lasting solutions to the Middle East crises and further strengthen the United Nation Security Council.

1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW

The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq on August 1990 precipitates diplomatic actions in the international community. The review of literatures on this issue is thematically arranged into three v;z; U.S Middle East conflict and invasion of Iraq, Big power politics and invasion of Iraq and U.S foreign policy and U.N agenda.

THE U.S – MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT AND INVASION OF IRAQ

This research study will review the United States policy and involvement in the Middle East conflict and invasion of Iraq. Prior to the discovery oil, the region had been a hotbed for religious conflicts and wars over other rich resources. The modern Middle East conflict seems to have escalated due to two factors. First, is the creation of states of Israel, secondly, the huge oil resources found in the Middle East.

The state of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, according to Richman (1991:4), but the Arab states rejected the partition of Palestine and the existence of Israel. The armies of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Trans Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt attacked but were defeated by the Israeli army. While the Jewish people were successful in creating their homeland with massive United States support, the creation however, generates chronic instability in the region.

Khalaf (2001:19) stressed that the United Stats involvement in the Middle East has been seen as a critical issues. The United States and West’s interest in the wider region have generally been due to oil and protection of their ally, Israel. Israel and Palestinian territories do not have oil but are surrounded by States that do. Strong military and financial support of Israel help to have a powerful ally in the region continuing, the author maintained that for United States to have a hold on the region other Arab dictators and corrupt rulers have also been supported and even helped into power. Saddam Hussein was one of them. Dictators that can be bought provided a useful check against possible popular uprising in the region and therefore, for the U.S., help ensure the attainment of their national interest and at the same time profit the local puppets, while the people of the region end up suffering. The support given to Israel by the United States has provided Israel with enormous military aids, to the extent that in the Middle East, Israel has the most advanced and superior military. Also, Israel has advance high tech/military industries and nuclear capabilities.

In his won views Margolis (2002:11) posits that cabal of non-conservatives hawks within the Bush administration had stealthily engineered a war against Iraq. Many of these non-conservatives were also strong supporters of Israel and they saw outing of Hussein as key to changing the political dynamics of the Middle East. Put differently, the war on Iraq was designed to leave Israel dominant and unchallenged in the mid east, put an end to Palestinian resistance and exact revenge on Hezbollah, and ensure Arab regimes would be subservient to Israel and the United States.

Describing the situation in the Middle East Michlis (2009:9) stressed that the Middle East is the most militarized region in the world and most arms sales head there. A suppressed people that sees United states influence as a major rroot cause of the current problems in the Middle East has led to a rise in Islamic militancy, acts of terrorism and anti-west sentiment, anti- U.S. in particular. When looking at some of the actions of the United states, it can often be seen why this unfortunately so the author opined that the and suppressed people of Palestine. This struggle for freedom has a geopolitical impact on the whole of Middle East. Control of resources and access to oil became paramount to the extent that dictators and human rights abusers were supported by the United States. Within this backdrop, we see another complex reason for the rise of terrorism and extremism.

The mood in the Arab world was highlighted by Wilkinson (2001:14), according to the author, the frustration and injustice of the treatment of the Palestinians has angered many citizens in the Arab would against U.S / Israel policies many militant groups from Palestine and other areas of the Middle East have therefore sprung up in recent years as well as past decades, performing acts of what the West and Israel describe as terrorism and what the groups themselves justify as freedom fighting. Suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism has terrorized Israel civilians and many United States interest, making peace harder to imagine.

Viewing the issue under discussion, from the perspective of Hockstader (2002:24), he sees the war in Iraq as the determination of United Stats to make an example of Iraq to teach the rest of its client Arab states the terrifying cost of disobedience. He stressed that the only Arab leader to show any gumption over the past deceased is Saddam Hussein. However cruel and disastrous his rule, Saddam alone stood up to the Middle East modern colonial power the United States. Saddam’s refusal to surrender in 1991 and his continuing defiance of Washington is why the U.S and Britain have bombed Iraq for the past ten years and why President Bush is so determined to crush Iraq and kill its leader. It’s not about weapons of mass destruction it’s about defiance.

BIG POWER POLITICS AND INVASION OF IRAQ

The inter-play of big powers in the international community especially in the United Nations Security Council, manifested as some big powers oppose the invasion of Iraq. Leading the pack are France and Germany, also, to some extent Russia and China. The opposition encountered by the United States led coalition in their bid to invade Iraq is what to be reviewed in this sub-theme.

According to Bello (2003:2), the United Nations Security Council standoff over Iraq is less about Saddam’s inability to comply with the U.N. resolutions but more about containing a hegemon that feels it has a blank cheque to intervene, topple and depose anywhere in the world with dangerous rationale of preventing a threat, no matter how abstract from reaching the American people, continuing Bello maintained that France and German at this point seem willing to stubbornly block the United States from waging war in Iraq. This move, according to the author is to discourage future United States moves that might pose a more direct threat to their national security. Cultural bound or a sense of generosity for being liberated from Mazism some decades ago notwithstanding, the fear of encouraging aggressive ambitions that could translate into economic bulling in the short term and military blackmail in the long term made them to oppose the United States.

Also, the big power politics as it concerns the invasion of Iraqi has generated cracks in the old alliances; Woodward (2002:297) contended that current Iraq crisis has already accelerated the decline of the Alliance of the ‘cold war era’, a development captured in the United States secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfiled’s disdainful comments about recalcitrant “old Europe”. This development marks the rebirth of balance of power politics where the lesser power move into active cooperation to contain United States aggression. Joining France and Germany are China and Russia with the more weighty developing countries like Brazil and perhaps even South Korea eventually hoping on board. Woodward narrated that though individual members of the coalition may change but it is likely to be long term. Currently, its real dynamics are clouded by the debate over the question of Saddam’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, the basis of this emerging coalition will eventually be more global security against the threat posed by the United States hegemony.

As the opposition to the U.S led war on Iraq unfolds, Battle (2003:12) noted that although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program but believed that the presence of United Nations weapons inspectors has frozen Iraq’s weapon programs. France also suggested that it will veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the United States. Battle went on to street that German chancellor; Garhard Schroder had a meeting with France President Jacques Chirac, after which they promised to all they could to avert war. At the time Germany was presiding over the Security Council. More so, Russia and China are towing the same line with France and Germany in opposing the war on Iraq. This is mostly because war on Iraqi is counter productive to the national interest of the oppositions.

In his view Marguadt (2003:4) emphasized that immediately the Bush administration took office international diplomacy reviewed an injection of power politics beginning with the declaration that North Korea, Iran and Iraq comprised an “axis of evil” and culminating in the current aggression toward. Baghdad, Washington has relied on the threat of military and economic force in order to further its perceived national interest and geopolitical goals. Despite economic pressures from the United States, French, German have remained steadfast against the notion of a preemptive strike on Iraq instead of supporting current U.S plans, Paris and Beerlin have called for a boost in the number of United Nations monitoring teams working inside Iraq. According to Marquardt, the motivation for French, German and Russian refused to participate in Washington’s Middle East policy is twofold: economic and the prevention of an unrestrained United States foreign policy.

U.S FOREIGN POLICY AND U.N AGENDA

The works to be reviewed here are those United States policies that coincide with United Nations agenda in the Middle East. Some of them include the fight against terrorism, democratization of Middle East and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. On the issue of terrorism, Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism Iran’s involvement in terrorist related activities remained focused on support for group opposed to Israel and peace between Israel and its neighbors. Iran has long provide Lebanese Hezbolah and Palestinian rejectionist groups notably Humas, the Palestine Islamic Jihad with varying amount of funding, safe haven, training and weapons (Harris, 2005:22) Relatively, as terrorists and their sponsors are planning so also is the United Nations. The United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, quoted in Khor (2005:1-4) presented a five Ds” plans to combat terrorism. The five D’s are; dissuading he disaffected from choosing the tactic, denying terrorist the means to carry out attacks, deterring state support, developing state preventive capacity stat defending human rights in the struggle against scourge. Annan called for a convention outlawing terrorism in all its forms and said the rights deliberately kill or main civilians. A high level panel he set up to study global threats, called for a definition of terrorism which make it caller that ant action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians and non-combatants. While the United Nations is gearing up to give terrorism a big fight, by articulating and supporting the U.S and its allies. United states is trying to export its kind of democracy to the Middle East in the hope that it can help to reduce Islamic militancy thereby paving way for peace and reconciliation between the Arabs and Israelis.

Despite some reservation, there is no denying that some sort of change is underway in the Middle East. According to Cook (2005:9), the Palestinians, Iraqis and Saudis held elections, anti-regime protests in Egypt gained momentum, Lebanese “people’s power” forced Syria to withdraw its army from Lebanon; Bahrainis demonstrated for political rights and constitutional change and the right to vote was extended to Kuwaiti women. Do these developments indicate that democracy is breaking out in the Middle East? On the other hand Arabs protest times and again that “democracy cannot e imposed from the outside” and that Washington’s new concern with democracy in the Middle East is merely interest-driven. In one sense these criticisms are surely correct democracy development in the Arab world will untimely be the result of internal dynamics pressures and contradictions. At the same time, however, Washington can and has played a constructive role mostly through blunt rhetoric’s in helping to bring these pressures and problems into sharp relief in some Arab countries.

Cook went on to explain that it is fair to assail a past policy that place a premium on the status quo, it should matter little that Washington’s support for democracy in Arab world is based on a calculation of national interest. When, after all, do the leaders of any country pursue polices hat are not based on a determination of what is in that country’s interest? Washington’s motives should matter less to Arab democrats then the very real changes that the Bush administration has wrought in its approach to Middle East policy.

As new drawn is breaking in the Middle East, brought about by glimmer of democracy, the United Nations and United states are trying to sustain the struggle to sanitize the Middle East and rid it of weapons of mass destruction. Analysts have advocated that the correct way to proceed in Middle East is to declare the region a nuclear free zone. The United states and the United Nations have shown some commitment toward non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the world and in the Middle East in particular. Discussion has intensified to stop nuclear arms race, the prevention of nuclear war, the prevention of an arms race in outer space, effective assurance to non-nuclear nations against the threat of nuclear attacks, transparency in armaments. (www.unwire.com) Retrieved on 9-01-2009). Erdamrnn (2003:24-26) noted that the difficulties the Bush administration has faced in forgoing a coherent policy in regards to Iran over the past two years has to do with the fact that the war in Iraq and dethroning of Saddam Hussein has sucked the oxygen out of the room in terms of internal government deliberations of other difficult policy challenges. While the focus on Iran’s nuclear program is perhaps understandable, since the thought of Iran armed with a nuclear weapon is not reassuring to anyone. Erdmann stressed that Iran is going to acquire a nuclear weapon if nothing is done. Thus, finding a solution to the Iranian nuclear threat may only be possible in the context of a broader strategy aimed at transforming Iran’s conduct at home and abroad.

Studies on the role of United Nations Security Council in the management of Iraq conflict focus on several themes pertaining to the conflicts generated by the pervasive influence of the United States and its subsequent resistance. However, what the literature over looked is that these conflicts are covertly or overly created in an attempt to perpetuate capitalist values. This present study is an attempt to fill this gap in the literature.