The Defiant Response of Iraq to the Multilateral Sanctions Imposed by the United Nations, Leading up to the Invasion of Kuwait
Introduction
On August 2nd, 1990, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was asserted due to ongoing allegations that Kuwait was extracting oil from Iraqi borders, and selling it at a price higher than that permitted by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein was quick to verbally attack Kuwait, by stating it had “stabbed Iraq in the back” as it was taking oil sales from his country. (Multilateral Responses, Grammas, p2) Hussein also went on to express that Kuwait’s actions were an attack of “economic warfare” a term which here meant that Kuwait’s aim was to weaken the economic stability of Iraq.
Hussein proceeded by physically attacking Kuwait, in a fierce attempt to put his actions into words. Hussein moved 100,000 Iraqi troops into Kuwait and occupied it within only six hours. It could be said that this was a rather one sided attack – when comparing Iraq’s army to Kuwait’s 20,000 troops. Additionally, geographically, Iraq consumes Kuwait – 472,000km2 v 17,000km2 (google)
Shortly after their forceful infiltration, President Bush made suggestions to the United Nations Security Council, on behalf of the United States, stating that sanctions should be placed on Iraq in order to gain regression and compliance. The suggestions were accepted by the Security Council, with a unanimous vote of 13 to 0, and imposed in the form of two Resolutions – the first of which involved freezing all trade in and out of Iraq and Kuwait. The second resolution was to place restrictions on the amount of chemical and biological weapons created by Iraq. In relation to the favour towards the sanctions, former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher stated “I cannot remember a time when we had the world so strongly together” a profound statement, particularly when considered it is in relation to international cohesion.
The aim of this report is to analyze the development of just war, from the first ideations written in the Bible, to the establishment of the United Nations Security Council in 1945. Particular detail will be paid to the United Nations Security Council, and how it functions as an organ in order to maintain international peace and security. The invasion of Kuwait will then be researched, in an attempt to identify where Iraq chose to ignore sanctions placed against them by the Security Council. Ultimately, the aim is to answer if the invasion of Kuwait was legitimate and just, under the orders imposed by the Security Council.
Events leading up to the invasion of Kuwait
As previously mentioned, Iraq enhanced over the borders in Kuwait over an ongoing dispute related to the extraction and selling of oil, at a time when Iraq was trying to rebuild (after the war with Iran in 1988) (Gulf news website) In reference to the attack on Iraq’s economic warfare, the dispute seemed to turn frivolous – Hussein went on to claim that a Kuwaiti official stated that “We will make the economy in Iraq so bad, one would be able to sleep with an Iraqi woman for ten dinars”
However, frivolity aside, in the two weeks proceeding the invasion, there were several letters exchanged between the Arab League and the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, in an attempt to settle for a reasonable selling price for the oil – one that would allow Iraq to rebuild its infrastructure. The letters also stated Iraq’s intentions should Kuwait choose to ignore the negotiations, an action that could potentially strengthen Hussein’s claim that he was under “economic warfare”. Kuwait responded to this on July 19th stating that Iraq had often breached Kuwaiti borders, and had not made an attempt to settle any ongoing disputes. In an attempt to enhance their position, the Kuwaiti Government brought their concers to the attention of the United Nations Secretary General, a move which negatively caught the attention of Iraq, who then accused Kuwait of “creating an Imperialist plan” (Multilateral responses, Grammas, p4)
Was Kuwait’s ignorance to Iraq’s requests an attempt of economic warfare?
Write about Augustine/Just War Theory
Modernly, the prohibition of the use of force is one of the most recognized rulings under international law, however, defining the term “use of force” does not come without its difficulties – there are 195 individual States across the World, all of which would define “use of force” in very different ways. This is usually in relation to State size, combined with “force” not always meaning “physical force” – smaller, less powerful States would most likely view an economic sanction as quite a forceful attack, however, a large, dominating state would only view this as a drop in the ocean. Due to this, it became important to establish a single governing body who held the responsibility of determining when force was used, and what the repercussions should be, in an impartial manner. 193 of 195 States are members of the United Nations. In 1945, the United Nations established the United Nations Charter, which is committed to upholding the human rights of all citizens, of all States, within the UN. Once the Charter was stable, it established the Security Council, and organ made up of 16 States (five permanent, and nine non permanent) responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. (United Nations Sanctions and the Rule of Law, Farrall, p15)
SELF DEFENSE:
Self defense is a concept that is common knowledge in every legal system around the world, a concept that was first characterized in the Bible, which discussed a homeowners right to kill the “thief breaking in” and subsequently described that if the homeowner kills to protect himself, he has no blood on his hands – therefore, there is no need for punishment, or response from other parties. (Defending Humanity, Fletcher, p26) However,
The 1990s saw many events that may not constitute as “just war” In 1999, NATO had launched Operation Allied Force, and was underway with its aerial bombardment of Serbia.
The Establishment and Purposes of the United Nations
At the conclusion of the Second World War, the United Nations was established – Article 1 of their Charter details their intentions to “maintain international peace and security and to take effective measures for the prevention and removal of threats…” and additionally “To develop friendly relations among nations”
The UN has six main organs, two of these being the Security Council and the General Assembly (International Law, Shaw, p876)
The Role of the Security Council in maintaining international security
MENTION UNITED NATIONS CHARTER FIRST
The Security Council, acting under the United Nations Charter, comprises of sixteen member States, five of which are permanent (China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, United States) theses states were granted permenance after their collective victory in World War II. The remaining nine member States have been elected by the “Big Five”. Elected members have an active role in the Security Council for two years, and are allocated to fall in line with the five UN regional groupings (Africa, Asia Pacific, Eastern Europe, Latin America & Caribbean, and Western European)
DETERMINING IF FORCE HAS BEEN USED
Chapter 7, A39 outlines that the ultimate role of the Security Council is to determine when a threat has been made against a State, and how best it should be dealt with. A2(4) of the United Nations Charter specifies that States cannot authorize the use of force independently, without the authorization of the Security Council, additional to this, A2(3) states that States should first attempt to settle their disputes peacefully.
Peaceful settlements are put towards States in a series of Resolutions. These Resolutions are a set of proposed sanctions, to be put towards a State in order to gain compliance, and to stabilize crisis situations– failure to gain compliance will result in the use of force. Examples of sanctions include calls for the withdrawal of troops from a foreign territory (International Law, Shaw, p902) or a demanding to cease trading in and out of a territory (which can often lead to more devastating effects for civilians)
The Resolutions discussed by all members of the Security Council, and at least nine of fifteen members must vote in favour (five of which MUST be the permanent member states) although the Big Five do have the power to veto and vote against – a power which is not given to the nine elected States.
Should the sanctions put in place against a State fail to gain compliance, force can then be use, however, it must either be under authorization of the Security Council, or when acting in self defense. In the context of war, the privilege of self defense allows for actions which would otherwise be illegal (Self Defense in International Law, Bowett, p117) This is reiterated in Chapter 7, A51 of the Charter, stating that “nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN”
Additional to this, it is the Security Council’s duty to determine whether aggression has been used as part of the force – a term which is not applied lightly. Aggression is considered by the UN as the most serious uses of force. However, the definition of aggression can be fluid and vague (quite likely at the request of the Big 5) It was profoundly described as “the most evil of evil” by Justice Jackson, a penultimate reason as to why States wanted the definition to be vague – they did not want to define something they could ultimately