Why the War Wasn’t Illegal

Again—interesting POV. I can see the war not being “ille­gal” while not being pre­cise­ly legal (by UN stan­dards), either, as the author points out.

The Wash­ing­ton Times, Sep­tem­ber 26, 2004
Michael E. O’Han­lon, Senior Fel­low, For­eign Pol­i­cy Studies
——————————————————————————–

Unit­ed Nations Sec­re­tary-Gen­er­al Kofi Annan was wrong in recent­ly terming the U.S.-led inva­sion of Iraq “ille­gal.”

The war admit­ted­ly occurred on legal­ly ambigu­ous grounds. It is also fair to acknowl­edge, even among those of us who accept­ed the log­ic of risk­ing war to ensure Iraq’s ver­i­fi­able dis­ar­ma­ment, that its basic desir­abil­i­ty and ben­e­fits can be debat­ed. Indeed, while not my view, it can rea­son­ably be argued the war was a strate­gic mis­take, as it may fos­ter more anti‑U.S. ter­ror­ism and risk leav­ing Iraq in chaos. 

But it was not ille­gal. U.N. Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil Res­o­lu­tion 1441, passed by unan­i­mous vote in Novem­ber 2002, made it clear the then sta­tus quo in Iraq was what was ille­gal. Sad­dam had already vio­lat­ed some 17 pre­vi­ous res­o­lu­tions demand­ing his ver­i­fi­able dis­ar­ma­ment. He was put on notice by Res­o­lu­tion 1441 that con­tin­u­ing this was emphat­i­cal­ly unacceptable. 

And while inspec­tors did make progress in Iraq in the ensu­ing weeks of late 2002 and ear­ly 2003, they hard­ly resolved all ques­tions. Iraq’s com­pli­ance then remained imper­fect at best, as chief U.N. weapons inspec­tor Hans Blix has noted. 

Even some­one who would have pre­ferred to see the inspec­tions con­tin­ue-and again, there was a case to be made for that approach-should not term the war illegal. 

Res­o­lu­tion 1441 did not allow Sad­dam sev­er­al more chances and sev­er­al more bouts of imper­fect com­pli­ance with U.N. demands. Once he again obstruct­ed and obfus­cat­ed, it became clear he was not vol­un­tar­i­ly and ver­i­fi­ably dis­arm­ing-and 1441’s clear impli­ca­tion was that this was unac­cept­able. Whether it auto­mat­i­cal­ly jus­ti­fied war was of course debat­able, and was hot­ly debat­ed at the time. But a legal case cer­tain­ly could be made for that justification. 

To be sure, when Wash­ing­ton tried to secure for­mal approval for war, the Unit­ed States and its part­ners failed to gain their desired sec­ond U.N. res­o­lu­tion in ear­ly 2003. That is why, prac­ti­cal­ly and legal­ly, the war was not explic­it­ly or unam­bigu­ous­ly legal. It was in a grey area. But again, being in a grey area is not the same as being illegal. 

To be sure, it would have been bet­ter if a sec­ond res­o­lu­tion had passed explic­it­ly autho­riz­ing war. In fact, even if blocked by a French or Russ­ian veto, it still would have been polit­i­cal­ly (though not legal­ly) ben­e­fi­cial to have a sec­ond res­o­lu­tion with the clear sup­port of a major­i­ty on the U.N. Secu­ri­ty Council. 

The Bush admin­is­tra­tion right­ly can be fault­ed for not both­er­ing to devel­op a strat­e­gy to improve the odds of such an out­come. U.S. behav­ior was, in this peri­od, strate­gi­cal­ly unwise and legal­ly shaky. And Mr. Ker­ry is on per­fect­ly rea­son­able ground in crit­i­ciz­ing this peri­od of Bush admin­is­tra­tion diplomacy. 

But that does not mean the U.S. action was ille­gal. No U.N. res­o­lu­tion explic­it­ly pro­hib­it­ed the use of force under the cir­cum­stances that exist­ed in ear­ly 2003. 

And Sad­dam had been such a men­ace to his own peo­ple and his neigh­bors in the past that his sys­tem­at­ic non­com­pli­ance with U.N. Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil demands made it rea­son­able to base an inva­sion on a num­ber of argu­ments, includ­ing the inher­ent right of col­lec­tive self-defense in Arti­cle 51 of the U.N. Charter. 

Sad­dam may have been con­tained at the time, more or less, but no one could con­fi­dent­ly argue he did not pose a struc­tur­al threat to region­al peace and sta­bil­i­ty over the longer term. 

Kofi Annan is under­stand­ably frus­trat­ed and even angered by con­di­tions in Iraq today-which cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly are not good, despite White House claims to the contrary. 

He also is on rea­son­able grounds in wish­ing the Bush admin­is­tra­tion had done more to be explic­it­ly mul­ti­lat­er­al and legal in approach­ing any war to unseat Saddam. 

But it is a much dif­fer­ent thing, and a mis­take, to deem ille­gal the use of force to over­throw a bru­tal dic­ta­tor who had sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly and dan­ger­ous­ly defied offi­cial demands made of him by the entire inter­na­tion­al community. 

© Copy­right 2004, The Brook­ings Institution 

——————————————————————————–
Note: The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and should not be attrib­uted to the staff, offi­cers or trustees of the Brook­ings Institution.
——————————————————————————–

The Brook­ings Insti­tu­tion, 1775 Mass­a­chu­setts Ave NW, Wash­ing­ton DC 20036
Tele­phone: (202) 797‑6004
E‑mail: Brook­ings Info

Cyn is a proud Mommy & Mémé, professional geek, avid reader, fledgling coder, enthusiastic gamer (TTRPGs), occasional singer, and devoted stitcher.
Posts created 4241

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top