The United States Invasion Of Iraq was a Violation of International Law

The United States Invasion Of Iraq was a Violation of International Law

1. How was the Invasion Justified?

   • It was justified by the "Fact" that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to both America and his own neighbors and was developing an arsenal of nuclear and biochemical weapons. The "FACT" was a lie
     • American State Secretary of the state Colin Powell said "He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction, he is unable to use conventional power against his neighbor.. The [U.S] policy of containment has effectively disarmed the Iraqi Dictator.
       • What is policy of Containment? Prior to 2003, The u.S, Britain and their allies pursued a policy of containment authorized by UN, Major elements of policy include: economic sanctions of Iraq, Disaranment requirements, weapons inspections, Northern and Southern no- fly zones, within Iraq
         • Led to: Many concerns were expressed about the pre-war containment policy; which undermined it's effectiveness and the result of much costlier conflict with Iraq in the future
           • However if cost is the issue then the money devoted by the United States could've been successfully used to enforce policy containment, rather than forced throw of regime.
       • During the months leading to invasion. Powell produced a document before the U.N purporting to prove that Iraq attempted to buy Uranium Ore from Niger, but the document turned out to be forged. However it unkown who forged it.
       • PROOF #1
     • JUSTIFICATION #1
     • Bush's Security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, Also described Iraq weak, divided and military defenseless. She said " Saddam can not even control the northern part of his country. An we aim to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
       • PROOF #2
     • CIA'S top weapons inspector said the hunt for WMD has gone as far as feasible and there is no evidence.
       • PROOF #3
     • SUMMARY of justification #1The United Staes and Britain went to war without the level of evidence needed to provide a clear strategic rationale for the war and without the full understanding the threat of Iraqi WMD posed to U.S, and British forces.
       • How did this Violate International Law? This uncertainty is not a definitive argument against carrying out a war that responded to grave potential threats. The U.S and Britain where unable to characterize the scale of Iraqi effort they described as a key motive for the conflict.
         • UN charter requires all members to settle international disputes by peaceful means. No nation has the authority for the use of military force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country.
           • ONLY TWO EXCEPTIONS
             • Security Council authorises the use of force
               • UN charter declares that no member has the right to enforce any security council resolution with military action, unless council decides so.
                 • Also, the use of armed force for preemptive or retaliatory war is prohibited by the charter. However The Bush doctrine invokes "Preemptive war" and downgrades containment and deterrence. "We can not let our enemies strike first."
                   • What is Preemptive war? It is defined by Oxford dictionary as the use of armed force (in effect, usually a surprise attack) undertaken in advance of an apparently imminent, expected but not yet actual, enemy attack. The difference between "Prevention war" and "Preemptive war" is that in prevention war you are 100% sure they are planing an attak
             • Act of Self Defense
               • Need of self- defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation
                 • However, the war was not a respond to an armed or imminent attack
   • Iraq had ties with Al- Qaueda (terrorist group); which craeted a threat to the U.S and allies. This was Not true.
     • JUSTIFICATION #2
     • Months before suicide attack on World Trade center Osama Bin Ladin (Leader of Organization) urged Iraqi Muslims to rise up against Saddam, because he viewed Saddam as an enemy of Islam
       • PROOF #1
     • DIA (defense Intelligence Agency) determined in February 2002 that "Iraq is unlikely to have provided Bin Ladin any useful [Chemical or Biological Weapons] knowledge or assistance." A year later Bush made another claim that Iraq also provided AL- Qaueda with chemical and biological weapons training. and it turned out to be invalid. The evidence was proven to be false and extremely tenuous.
       • PROOF #2
       • This led to: The United States to come up with new Post-hoc justification for war.
         • SUMMARY For Justification #2 there was no proof once again that there was any relation between Saddam Hussein and Al- Qaueda. Therefore this justification to carry out a war and claim it to be a threat is invalid, and uncredited.
           • HOW DID THIS VIOLATE THE INTERNATIONAL LAW? This once again is not enough to base the war and invasion on grounds of self- defense. Carrying out the war to this claim violates Article 51
             • Due to this weak Justification, and the failed attempt of using post 9/11 as proof, The United States tried to create false claims by bringing unlawful witnesses
   • Saddam was a dictator whose brutal regime had enslaved Iraq. This was partially true, some supported Saddam and others did not. However this justification is not enough:
     • Colin Powell called Sadamm a "dictator" in Cairo, February 2001, while he was standing next to the Eygptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. the difference is that America supported the Eygptian regime because it was in it's best interest to do so, As it was for their best interest to invade Iraq.
       • Proof #1
       • They use of the Humanitarian issue is Hypocritical because Saddam killed 400, 00 Iraqi's when he was in Power and The United States killed 500, 000 Iraqi children alone sine 1991. Therefore the United States did not help the oppressed but rather became the oppressors
         • PROOF #2
         • “Saddam Hussein was not a valid object for counter-proliferation. He was not an imminent or even remote threat to the United States or to Iraq’s neighbors.”
     • Justification #3