After failing to obtain authorization for war from the UN Security Council, the Bush
Administration has scrambled to assemble a so-called “Coalition of the Willing” to lend the
military action against Iraq the illusion of genuine multilateralism and legitimacy.
Iraq
Authority for War IS an Issue
“We come as liberators, not as conquerors.”
Scarred and Battered, UN Charts Course in Post-War Iraq
There is a clear consensus across the world that neither logic nor legality permit the “Coalition” invading Iraq to enforce alleged UN Security Council decisions against the will of the majority of its members. However, in a backhanded compliment to the legitimating power of the organization—and as the U.S. and UK shred the UN Charter’s keystone provisions on the illegality of war—they both, to varying degrees, feel the need to invoke it.
FPIF Statement on the War
In 1996 Foreign Policy in Focus set out to build a network committed to the goal of making the U.S. a more responsible world leader. By “responsible” we meant a government vigorously pursuing the unfinished business of building international norms and institutions capable of preventing war and advancing political and economic justice.
Crunch Time for the Security Council
In his March 6th prime time news conference, President Bush made his case for why, with or without UN authorization and support, the United States remains adamant that Saddam Hussein and his regime will be removed from power. The reasons proffered were not new: a threat to regional and world stability and peace; disregard for the human rights of Iraqis; links to terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda; and, failure to fully and immediately comply with UN resolutions dating back to 1991.
President Bush’s February 26 Speech on the Future of Iraq: A Critique
Considerable attention has been given to President George W. Bush’s February 26 speech before the right-wing American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC outlining his vision of the Middle East in the aftermath of a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq. The speech was broadcast live over national radio and television and given widespread coverage in the print media, yet few critical voices questioning the major points raised in this sanctimonious and highly misleading address were given the opportunity to offer commentary. Below are excerpts of some key portions of the speech followed by some critiques that listeners and viewers were unable to hear:
Unity–But on Whose Terms?
The answer used to be effective disarmament of Iraq. Now it is the “necessity” to unite to enforce UN Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq, to be “relevant” in the 21st century by adhering to Washington’s demands.
The “Day After” in Iraq: Lessons from Afghanistan
Much of the current debate on the crisis in Iraq focuses on the “day after” the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime. What will Iraq look like and how will the United States and the international community rebuild the country and fulfill its promise of “reshaping” it into a bastion of democracy for the entire region?
A Coalition of Weakness
As U.S. officials look for political cover after losing the drive for a second UN Security Council resolution, the recently renamed “Coalition to Disarm Iraq” is the Bush administration’s only opportunity to salvage a semblance of international legitimacy for war. A closer look at the countries involved reveals that claims to multilateral action in the name of democracy are grossly exaggerated. In reality, the U.S. is isolated internationally, and a few of the countries signing on to “liberate” Iraq have human rights records that rival Saddam Hussein’s.
Coalition of the Willing or Coaltion of the Coerced?
The Institute for Policy Studies has analyzed the relationship between the United States and the
nations in the Security Council and those in Bush’s non-UN coalition. Are these allies supporting
the United States on the merits of the case, or is their support of the U.S. war effort more a result
of coercion, bribes, and bullying?