Picking up the pieces after the US/UK-led invasion of Iraq
<a href=www.barbadosadvocate.com>The Barbados Advocate Web Posted - Sat Apr 05 2003
The late Mr. Gladstone Holder had a substantial disregard for the United Nations (UN). He regarded it as a creature of the Great Powers who had won the Second World War and who were determined that their supremacy won by the force of arms should be retained forever. The United States of America (US) and United Kingdom (UK) are the principal progenitors of the UN and they had invited the Soviet Union, France and China to share the dominant role.
He would have found the snub which the UN had suffered at the hands of the UK and US unsurprising. The Twins in Concert just would not be willing to play second fiddle to their creation. It had been difficult enough for the US to restrain itself during the days of the Cold War, but with the US as the only super-power there is no need for the US to be so inhibited.
Iraq was ripe for the picking, and it was plucked for the burning. The greatest difficulties would arise after the taming of Saddam Hussein. He would anticipate that within a matter of months the other members of the Great Five – Russia, China and France – would acquiesce in, if not legitimise and legitimate the invasion of Iraq. Their doubts about the legality of the action of the UK and US would be effectively shoved aside and the UN Security Council would move on to dealing with probably another neighbour of Iraq, or North Korea.
The Arabs’ responses to Iraq could, of course, be the fly in the ointment. The hope is that placating the Palestinians in their struggle against Israel should be enough to keep Arab and Muslim desires for retaliation and reprisal in check. A pragmatic approach to the breaching of customary international law and of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which basically outlaws unilateral use of force will prevail.
Unsettling points
He would have raised a number of troubling issues. The US, for instance, appears to be pressing for unconditional surrender and unilaterally seizing the dominance after conquest. With the overthrow of the Government of Iraq, who would there be in Baghdad to relinquish control and upon whom would the power and control be conferred? It is a principle of international law, especially in respect of territory, that no one can give away what is not his. In 2003, as against in 1920, customary international law, the Charter and such treaties as the Renunciation of Force Treaty of 1928 conclusively state that territory cannot be acquired by use of force, except, perhaps by Security Council action or as a consequence of self-defence or self-determination. To provide a fig leaf of legality the US and the UK would at least have to hand over control to the United Nations immediately.
It is, of course, within the realm of possibility that a rump of the Baathist Party or a Nationalist Party of the same hue, may contest the sovereignty of Iraq, in the short run if not immediately. Given the commitment to régime change, the government of the US is unlikely to countenance such a development, whatever the commitment to democracy. Democracy, as interpreted, is unlikely to include anyone with the slightest Baathist taint. The US will probably not baulk at managing the affairs of Iraq single-handedly in the early days if to do otherwise would require Baathist assistance.
Mr. Holder would have reminded us that the US is experienced in dealing with post-violation trauma in Latin America over the last half-century: 1954: Intervention in Guatemala which ushered in 45 years of violence, repression and instability. 1961: Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba against a sovereign nation where government was recognised as legitimate by the international community. 1965: Invasion of Dominican Republic to prevent the rise of another Castro in the Caribbean. 1970-73: Intervention in Chile which overthrew the democratically-elected Communist Allende and established the Pinochet dictatorship. 1980s: Intervention in Nicaragua which was an internationally recognised government with which the US had diplomatic relations. The matter reached the International Court of Justice. The US was condemned after attempting unsuccessfully to evade the jurisdiction of the International Court. 1989: Christmas invasion of Panama ‘at the cost of hundreds of lives and millions of dollars in damage’.This last, the invasion of Panama and the seizure of President Noriega, drove a sword deeply into the heart of the Great Man.
Of course, for him, the hills never ceased to cry out over the disease and pain, suffering and death to which the children of Iraq were for years subjected, because of UN sanctions against Iraq, a policy which the UN is now hastening to remove! Thousands of children too late!
Pre-emptive strike Even if things go slightly awry for the US in Iraq, the UN will be effectively finessed. While the UN may find itself bogged down, it cannot allow the US and UK to stew in their own juice. The US and UK will not expose their act to the scrutiny of an impartial court or tribunal. The pre-emptive strike may be here to stay and may by default become a new norm of international law. Pakistan may revert to it for action against India; Colombia for action against Venezuela; Russia against any of its annoying neighbours or any belligerent African state against any of its own .... In the meantime, Iraq stands to be broken up, balkanised after further shedding of blood – never mind the several commitments to the territorial integrity by the United Kingdom.
Finally, if the region stabilises, eschewing terrorism, in half a century the Saddam Hussein Airport may be restored and Hussein made a national hero in a truncated Iraq.