The document discusses the legal justification for the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. It describes how the US Congress authorized military force in 2002 and how President Bush gave Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to leave Iraq in March 2003. It also discusses how the US and UK withdrew their bid for new UN authorization after Russia, France, and Germany signaled they would veto any resolution compelling Iraq's disarmament.

1. GOING
TO
WAR:
IRAQ, 2003

2. On October 16, 2002, US
Congress enacted the “Iraq
War Resolution,” authorizing
the use of military force
against Iraq

3. By March 17, 2003, President
Bush gave Saddam Hussein a
final ultimatum: leave Iraq, or
face military invasion
The following video is from
that date.

4. ...let me stop you right there, President Bush.

5. At the beginning of the video, the CBS Here’s a clue -
news reporter says something interesting:
“Earlier today Britain and the US gave
up their bid to win new authorisation
for action against Iraq from the UN
Security Council... rather than face
defeat”
Bush suggests in his statement that
‘defeat’ would have come from
“Some permanent members” of the UN
Security Council who had “publicly
announced that they will veto any
resolution that compels the
disarmament of Iraq”
(Credit to Steve Bell, 2003, at the Guardian - http://
Who is he talking about? www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,908569,00.html)

6. I hear you say: And I respond:
“But Russia, France and “Very well done indeed for
Germany are members of the having imbibed so much
Permanent 5 of the UNSC! from the previous level!
Surely, given their veto
power, there can have been But I’m afraid it gets a little
no legal recourse to war! And more complicated than that.”
surely, any violation of a
UNSC resolution constitutes
a violation of the UN Charter
itself!”

7. That’s the point of level 7.
The following level is meant
to help you learn the key
facts specific to the debate
over the legality of the
invasion of Iraq. You’ll learn
the resolutions, important
dates and so on.
Image: the UNSC Chamber

8. ...this:
I’d like to put that stuff in
context here.
We’ll see that the Gulf war of
the early 1990s is really
important to the American-
led side of the debate.
...and this:
My own personal
understanding of the events
are informed above all by the
time period between...

9. For example...
There was a noticeable shift in the
way that America talked about
foreign policy after 9/11.
“Before the
People talk about this in terms of day of horror can
come, before it is too
the “Bush doctrine” which is really late to act, this danger
will be removed. The
a rather rubbish term since it United States of America
doesn’t have a set meaning. has the sovereign
authority to use force in
assuring its own
But, people do often associate the national security.”
“Bush doctrine” with the doctrine
of preventive war.

10. The USA’s idea of “preventive
war” was framed in the 2002
National Security Strategy. It
said:
“The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction
– and the more compelling the case for taking
anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if
uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the
enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a
terrorist attack with WMD.
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our
adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act
preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-
defense. The United States will not resort to force in all
cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is
that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should
ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.”

11. So what’s the deal here? (“Destruction of the Caroline” by George Tattersall)
“Inherent right to self-defence” is
lifted straight from the UN
Charter’s Article 51.
And pre-emptive force? Well
customary law (based on the
Caroline case which built the
parameters for ‘anticipatory self-
defence’) says that’s legal too.
But the trouble is, the threat is
meant to be immediate and
overwhelming.Pre-emptive does
not equal preventive, goes the
argument.

12. So, obviously, the US needed
to demonstrate that it was
under immediate threat from
Iraq for its invasion to be
legal, under Article 51 of the
UN Charter.
In their rhetoric, the Bush
administration found an
identity between the threat
from the Saddam Hussein
regime and (Al Qaeda)
terrorism...

13. “The regime has
a history of reckless aggression in
the middle east. It has a deep hatred of
America and our friends, and it has aided
trained and harboured terrorists including
operatives of Al Qaeda. The danger is clear.
Using chemical, biological or one day nuclear
weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the
terrorists could fulfil their stated ambition and Previously, on
kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of February 6, 2003, US
innocent people in our country or
Secretary of State
any other.”
Colin Powell had made
a presentation to the
UN claiming that Iraq
was harbouring a
terrorist organisation
led by Al-Qaeda
operative Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi

14. ... whether or not such an
identity existed is not for me to
say. I didn’t see the intelligence.
Suffice it to say that there has
been plenty of controversy over
what evidence actually existed...
All in all, though, it seemed a
pretty tenuous grab for a “self-
defence” justification.
Perhaps this is why America and
its partners (notably the UK)
were unable to push through its
proposed UNSC resolution to
authorise their use of force in
Iraq.

15. So yes, in 2003 the US, UK and After all, if it had been vetoed, it
Spain tabled a resolution (later would have been difficult to
withdrawn, as the CBS newsman argue that the coalition had had
pointed out) which was supposed UNSC authorisation...
to give the “coalition of the
willing” legal UNSC
authorisation to invade Iraq
When France, Germany and
Russia made it clear that they
would use their ‘veto power,’ and
prevent the resolution from
being enacted, it was time to
change tack.

16. (Other countries also voiced disagreement with the
proposed resolution, but the primary concern was with the
P5 as a result of their unmatched powers to make or break
a resolution.)

17. And of course, the US has veto
power too - so there was never
going to be a resolution
condemning the war.
All the same, the US and UK
(leading the ‘coalition of the
willing’ in its infancy) now
argued that the UN had already
authorised the use of force in
Iraq...
...in 1990 and 1991, in the form (That’s when Iraq invaded Kuwait and was
of Resolutions 678 and 687 condemned for it by the UNSC, and also, when
the above chap was President of the US.)

18. Resolution 678 says:
(I’ve highlighted the most important bit, so if you’re bored,
skip the rest)
To perk things up, here’s a picture of some cats who love
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
each other:
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990)
and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while
maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final
opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the
Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January
1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the
above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to
uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all
subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international
peace and security in the area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the
actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present
resolution;
4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council
regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken
pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

19. Resolution 687 says:
(this one’s long, so i’ve only included a few highlights)
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
This is even duller, so here’s a picture of my dog Yo-Yo’s
1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly lovely little face:
changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a
formal cease-fire;
[...]
4. Decides to guarantee the inviolability of the above-mentioned
international boundary and to take as appropriate all necessary
measures to that end in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations;
[...]
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction,
removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all
related subsystems and components and all research, development,
support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and
related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
[...]
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit
or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization
directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory
and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and
practices of terrorism.

20. Although I uncharitably cut
him off mid-speech earlier,
I’m not going to let
President Bush finish his
‘ultimatum’ speech (it’s a bit
long). Instead, I’ll join him
again the following day,
when he effectively makes
his declaration of war...

21. My own view?
I think all the chopping and changing, word-manipulation,
casual conflations by the US point to the violation of at least
some international principles if not international law. After all,
just cause and just intention are meant to be identical. The need
for self defence shouldn’t, I feel, be quite as debatable.
I also want to point out that, although all the legal capacities of
the UN seem totally vulnerable to unilateral action from a state
like the USA (like when Bush said they had tried to work with
the UN but couldn’t be bothered anymore - I paraphrase), the
US did jump through a lot of hoops to justify their invasion on
the basis of international law. That, I think, says something
about its power.

22. Please tell me, and everyone
else, what you think, tell me
why I’m wrong and what I’ve
left out, on Level 8’s
discussion forum!
(I’m all ears..?)