Iraq disarmament crisis

This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions. (May 2009)

The Iraq disarmament crisis was claimed as one of primary issues that led to the multinational invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003.

Since the 1980s, Iraq was widely assumed to have been producing and extensively running the programs of

.

After the

UN weapons inspectors

unfettered access to areas those inspectors thought might have weapons production facilities.

Since the

were revealed.

Background

Events leading up to the Iraq War
14 July Revolution 1958 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict 1961–1991 17 July Revolution 1968 Iranian Revolution 1978–1979 Ba'ath Party Purge 1979 Iran–Iraq War 1980–1988 Iraqgate 1982–c.1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 1990 Gulf War 1990–1991 Sanctions against Iraq 1990–2003 Iraqi uprisings 1991 Iraqi no-fly zones conflict 1991–2003 Iraq disarmament crisis 1991–2003 Arms-to-Iraq affair 1992–1996 September 11 attacks 2001 U.S. anthrax attacks 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan 2001 Prague connection 2001 Iraq Resolution 2002 Wood Green ricin plot 2003 Colin Powell's UN presentation 2003
v t e

In the decade following the 1991 Gulf War, the United Nations passed 16

Member states

communicated their frustration over the years that Iraq was impeding the work of the UN Special Commission and failing to take seriously its disarmament obligations. Iraqi security forces had on several occasions physically prevented weapons inspectors from doing their job and in at least one case, took documents from them.

On 29 September 1998, the

Iraqi opposition groups

to remove Saddam Hussein from office. The Act was signed by President Clinton on 31 October 1998. On the same day, Iraq announced it would no longer cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors.

The UN, under Kofi Annan, brokered a deal wherein Iraq would allow weapons inspectors back into the country. Iraq ceased cooperating with inspectors only days later. The inspectors left the country in December. Inspectors returned the following year as part of The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).

", with the goal of striking first to eliminate threats.

This policy was short-lived, however, and Clinton, along with

preemptive action

; Iraq was widely agreed to be a likely subject of this new policy. Powell continued to support the philosophy behind containment.

Following the Gulf War, the

Special Republican Guard

.

2002–2003

During late 2002 and into 2003, the

(WMD) it supposedly possessed and convinced the UN that it had done so.

US diplomatic pressure to bring Iraq to compliance quickly created a diplomatic crisis in the UN, where some members were in agreement with the U.S. position, while others dissented, notably the permanent Security Council members

.

The

(IAEA), the Resolution brought weapons inspectors back to Iraq in November 2002.

Inspectors began visiting sites where WMD production was suspected, but found no evidence of such activities, except for 18 undeclared empty 122 mm chemical rockets that were destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. P. 30 Inspectors also found that the Al-Samoud-2 and Al-fatah missiles violated the UN range restrictions, the former also being partially destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision.

On March 7, 2003 Hans Blix reported accelerated cooperation throughout the month of February but it was still not "immediate" and "unconditional" as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441.^[3] He informed the UN security council that "it will not take years, nor weeks, but months" to verify whether Iraq had complied with its disarmament obligations.^[4][5]

U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair met in the Azores islands for an "emergency summit" over the weekend of March 15–16, 2003, after which Bush declared that, despite Blix's report, "diplomacy had failed" to compel Iraq to comply with UN Resolution inspection requirements, and stated his intention to use military force to attack Iraq in what was, according to the Bush administration, compliance with the threat of "serious consequences" in UN 1441.

UNSC disagreement

General Assembly of the United Nations

on 12 September 2002 to outline the complaints of the United States government against the Iraqi government

Several close allies of the U.S. (e.g.

Statements by President Bush

On 7 October 2002 President Bush stated:

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.[8]

On 17 March 2003 Bush stated in an address to the nation:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.^[9]

Two days later on March 19, 2003, as the invasion of Iraq began, Bush stated in an address to the nation:

"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.^[10]

Statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin

On October 11, 2002,

. At a news conference, he said:

Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet.^[11]

Statements by French President Jacques Chirac

In a February 2003 joint declaration by Russia, Germany and France, Jacques Chirac remarked:

As far as France is concerned, we are ready to envisage everything that can be done under UNSCR 1441. ... But I repeat that every possibility offered by the present resolution must be explored, that there are a lot of them and they still leave us with a lot of leeway when it comes to ways of achieving the objective of eliminating any weapons of mass destruction which may exist in Iraq. I'd like nevertheless to note that, as things stand at the moment, I have, to my knowledge, no indisputable proof in this sphere.^[12]

Legality

Authority under International Law

The position of whether the invasion was legal under

forbids UN members from employing "the threat or use of force" against other states in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Two exceptions exist to the rule: self-defense (Article 51) or an authorization by the Security Council to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

The government of the United States said publicly, and the British pledged privately, that they were willing to invade Iraq with or without Security Council authorization.^[13]

There have been two military actions carried out with the approval of the Security Council. These two instances were the

.

The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of any international court over its citizens or military, holding that the

(ICC) treaty, and on 6 May 2002 it informed the UN that it has no intention to do so.

As of 24 February 2005 neither Iraq nor the United States have ratified the ICC treaty, and therefore neither the US attack on Iraq nor subsequent actions in Iraq fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. The actions of signatories such as the United Kingdom and Spain could however fall under the ICC jurisdiction.

On March 17, 2003, Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General for England and Wales, set out his government's legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. He said that the 1990 Security Council Resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by the 1991 Resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In Resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm, and in early 2003 sent teams of weapons inspectors to verify the facts on the ground.

Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that in their view, after resolution 1441 there was still no authorization for the use of force and that the invasion was illegal under international law.

Authority under US Constitution

The

.

In 1973, amid increasing domestic controversy about the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of the president to undertake prolonged military action without Congressional authority. No president since has recognized the constitutionality of this act, and most legal scholars believe it would not survive a challenge in court.

To avoid initiating a crisis under the War Powers Resolution, the Bush administration sought explicit approval from the Congress to exercise force in Iraq. On October 9, 2002, the Congress passed the

that the President had established, (and defended by arguing that he was given the power to create military courts by this resolution), were unconstitutional because they were unauthorized by Congress.

The Constitution also provides that international treaties ratified by the United States are among the highest law of the land (

).

Aftermath

After the invasion of Iraq, the Iraq Survey Group, headed by David Kay was formed to find the alleged weapons of mass destruction. Apart from a small quantity of degraded pre-1991 shells, nothing was found.^[16]

See also

• Curveball (informant) - False informant about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
• Disarmament of Libya
• Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq

References

External links

• UK Attorney General's Iraq response - BBC News
• Blair - "We are ready to act on Iraq" - BBC News
• Bully Bush - Slate Magazine
• Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Net Assessment - International Institute for Strategic Studies
• News & Analysis: Iraq - World Socialist Web Site
• Rice makes case against Iraq to Britain - Washington Times
• The Thirty Year Itch Archived 2003-10-04 at the Wayback Machine - Mother Jones
• When Will Americans Come? - Wall Street Journal
• Who Armed Iraq? - San Francisco Chronicle
• Examines Reasons for War - American Liberty Foundation
• Law unto themselves - Guardian