US poised to hit Iraq

by pv vivekanand

IF reports are accurate, then a US military strike against Iraq is imminent although it defies logic even in military terms, terrain and weather and of course the regional situation in the Middle East. Perhaps that is the mysterious element in the American approach to executing its declared plan to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein despite international opposition.
Be that it may, the fact remains that there is no well-established legal basis for the US plan within or outside the UN framework.
UN Security Council Resolution 665 adopted in August 1990 authorised the use of force against Iraq since that country had invaded another sovereign state, Kuwait, and Resoluton 678 of November of the same year set the Jan. 15 deadline for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait or face war. The international community, including a majority of members of the Arab League, backed the use of force against Iraq at that time after Baghdad refused to quit Kuwait.
The mission was accomplished and Iraq was evicted from February1991 and the authorisation for war offered by UN Security Council resolutions 665 and 678 was terminated when Resolution 687 was adopted in April 1991 formally ending the military action launched by a US-led coalition of 31 countries.
Since then, the UN Security Council has adopted dozens of resolutions related to Iraq, but all of them covered the various by-products of the 1990 Iraqi invasion and the 1991 liberation of Kuwait and none of them prescribed another war or an invasion of Iraq and ouster of its leadership. Those resolutions dealt with the UN trade embargo against Iraq and the conditions under which the sanctions could be lifted and with the "oil-for-food" programme.
In fact, there is no UN endorsement of the "no-fly" zones imposed and patrolled by the US and UK in the north and south of Iraq, and, by extension, their frequent attacks on Iraq in retaliation for alleged provocations have no legal basis within the UN system. Nor was there any UN endorsement of the several rounds of massive missile attacks and bombings of targets in Iraq carried out by the US.
In the framework of the various resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council since the Gulf war of 1991, there is no authorisation for the use of force against Iraq related to its shortl-lived occupation of Kuwait.
In strict legal terms, Iraq's refusal to allow the return of UN inspectors could be construed as defiance of the UN Security Council resolutions that calls for the elimination of Baghdad' alleged weapons programme. However, there is no UN stipulaton for military action for its perceived rejection of the world body's decisions and demands.
Indeed, the Bush administration could revoke the US right to defend itself as a justification for military action in the wake of the Sept.11 attacks in New York and Washington as it did in order to execute the Afghanistan war. The right to self-defence is clearly enshrined in the UN Charter. But can the US rely on the same right to strike against Baghdad now?
Asserting that Iraq was linked to the Sept. 11 attacks and proving it beyond reasonable doubt are two different things. Even in the hypotheis that the US manages to establish such a link -- as it is obviously trying to do through relying on Iraqi defectors with little or no credibility -- would that provide the legal umbrella for a US invasion of iraq?
One of the reasons cited by US President George W. Bush for his moves against Iraq is the alleged Iraqi development and possession of weapons of mass destruction that he contented Baghdad was using to "terrorise" the region.
According to Bush, action against countries "terrorising" neighbours with weapons of mass destruction is part of the US-led war on terrorism; but then how many of Iraq's neighbours are complaining of being "terrorised" by Baghdad? If anything, all of them have opposed the US plan for military action against Iraq and are highly concerned about the repercussions of such a course of events in the region.
No doubt Washington strategists and legal experts are too familiar with the thin ice Washington is skating on towards invading Iraq; and it is obvious why the US reacts with vehemence whenever any government refers to the lack of a legal foundation for its plans to topple Saddam Hussein.
Obviously, the Bush administration is too aware of the futility of an exercise to secure UN endorsement for its designs even from the very same UN members it contents are threatened and terrorised by Baghdad. Any such effort would only open a Pandora's box from where skeletons would emerge of American unilateralism.
As far as Washington is concerned, UN authorisation for whatever action against Iraq already exists in UN Security Council resolutions -- although it fails to be specific -- and of course tough luck if the world fails to see it that way.
The US stand is an affront to the international community and the very foundations of the UN as a watchdog to ensure justice for all, but the sad reality is that no one seems to be able or willing enough to contain the self-assumed US posture of as the sole policeman, judge and executioner of the world.