 |
|
|
Home | Search | Site Index | Site Map | Directories | |
|
|||
 |
Kent Kille is a visiting assistant professor in the department of political science and the international relations program at The College of Wooster. He has an extensive background in international relations, international organization, political leadership, nationalism, national identity, and transnational actors and relations. He earned his bachelor's degree, with highest distinction, from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and his Ph.D. from The Ohio State University. He is associate editor of International Journal of Peace Studies and project director of The Impact of Religious and Ethical Values of the United Nations Secretaries-General on Building the Peace, part of the Program on Ethics and International Relations at the Center for Ethics and Social Policy, Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Calif. |
With the passage of United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 on November 8 setting out the guidelines for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, and the subsequent acceptance of this resolution by Iraq, the initial return of the inspectors is underway. Kent Kille, a visiting assistant professor in political science and the international relations program, examines how the United Nations reached this point and assesses how the situation might develop in the future. Why did the United States work through the United Nations to address Iraq instead of acting alone? Ever since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the situation has been handled multilaterally through the United Nations Security Council. If the United States undertook unilateral action, it would have been going against a long-standing multilateral framework for containing Iraq. Working through the United Nations also helps to maintain the support of American allies and provides a greater sense of legitimacy for the handling of Iraq that can help to limit backlash against the United States. However, it should be noted that there are some who believe that the United States made a mistake in returning to the United Nations because this could constrain the American government's capability to undertake military action when and how it sees fit. In fact, until President Bush's speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 12, there were no guarantees that the United States would not act alone. How did the Security Council work to formulate the latest resolution on Iraq? The Security Council is composed of 15 members. Ten of these members are elected by the General Assembly and serve two-year terms, but the "Big 5" powers - China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States - hold permanent seats. These five also wield veto power so if one of them votes no, then a Security Council resolution does not pass. Thus, although nine of the 15 must vote yes for a resolution to pass, much of the United States' diplomatic efforts were focused on the other permanent members. This was necessary because some of the other members, France and Russia in particular, wanted to have two separate resolutions - one resolution to re-instate weapons inspectors into Iraq and a second resolution, if necessary, to determine the punishment if Iraq did not comply with the inspectors. The United States wanted one resolution that would guarantee military action if the efforts of the weapons inspectors were blocked. In the end, Security Council Resolution 1441 was unanimously accepted by all 15 members. Where does the process go from this point? The first step of Iraq accepting Resolution 1441 has already been met and now United Nations weapons inspectors are moving back into the country. The resolution sets a series of clear steps that must be followed from this point. While ever-changing events may intercede, the next stage needed to be completed by Dec. 8. By this point, Iraq needed to provide a "currently accurate, full and complete declaration" of all of its programs and material related to weapons of mass destruction. This is a key step since there are concerns that Iraq will not fully comply with this directive and any "false statements or omissions" would be considered a "material breach" of the resolution. Although they are on track to be underway sooner, the weapons inspectors' operations will follow on the heels of this report and must be fully operational by Dec. 23, with the first report due to the Security Council by Feb. 21. What problems remain in carrying out the UN resolution? The big issue that must be addressed is what is "compliance" and what is "non-compliance" with Resolution 1441. This remains a debate between the United States and many of the other members of the Security Council. Representative of the more cautious view, Secretary-General Kofi Annan has urged restraint and patience in implementing the resolution. However, President Bush has stated that there should be "zero tolerance" of any Iraqi actions that run counter to the purposes of the resolution. In the letter accepting Resolution 1441, Iraq claims that they do not have weapons of mass destruction and once this is established, then the economic sanctions should finally be lifted. If the initial efforts of the weapons inspectors do not reveal any indications of weapons of mass destruction, it is unclear how long the inspectors should continue their investigation or whether the international community, and the United States in particular, will ever be convinced of Iraq's claims. What is the likelihood of avoiding military action against Iraq? This is a difficult question. The first indicator is Iraq's behavior now that the Security Council resolution has passed. The belligerent tone of the letter to the Secretary-General accepting Resolution 1441, along with the continued firing at planes patrolling the no-fly zones in Iraq, are not positive steps. The interpretation of Iraq's actions due to the continuing debate over what threshold of non-compliance must be crossed to trigger military action. Another sticking point is whether compliance will be accepted while Saddam Hussein remains in power. Regime change was not raised in the United Nations resolution, but this is clearly an issue for the American government. However, as demonstrated by the unanimous support for Resolution 1441, there is a clear desire by many in the international community to reach a peaceful solution, but it is not quite clear at this point what that would look like. |
|
|
|
|
|
Last Updated: |
