License to war (22 November 2002)
Published in Labour Left Briefing, December 2002.

Glen Rangwala looks at the blank cheque presented by the UN to the US

8th November may go down as the day when the key governments around the world gave a blank cheque to the present far right US administration to invade Iraq. On that day, the fifteen members of the UN Security Council endorsed a US draft resolution that was essentially unchanged from its earlier versions in licensing a war on Iraq, despite protestations around the world and allegations of a new spirit of US compromise.

The most worrying aspect of the vote in the Security Council is not so much the content of Resolution 1441, though it is deeply flawed and detracts from any agenda to promote regional security. It is the fact that the long-standing positions of many of the countries that had previously opposed the measures contained in the resolution changed as easily as they did.

In one swoop, the US and UK obtained implicit UN approval for the large-scale bombing raids that they have launched on Iraq periodically from 1993. They acquired the Security Council's approval for a provision that was designed to be used by the UK and US to justify the air exclusion zones they have imposed on Iraq since 1991. They managed to obtain official endorsement for a revisionist account of the history of UN weapons inspections and the UN's response to events since the US forced the withdrawal of inspectors in 1998, to the point of including simple factual errors. The resolution also eliminates the system of checks and balances in the weapons inspections regime, introduced after many UNSCOM inspectors were found to have spied for their national governments on non-weapons related issues.

For all these issues, the positions of the Russian, French, Chinese and Arab governments had been clear over the past few years, in opposing the bombing, the no-fly zones and the subversion of inspectors. These positions crumbled when faced with US bribes, cajoling and threats. Anyone who had anticipated principled anti-war positions from these institutions would be sorely disappointed. Those who remember the manner in which the US bought support for the 1991 Gulf War - with $14bn "debt forgiveness" to Egypt, a green light to Syria in Lebanon, a series of multi-billion dollar bribes to the ailing Gorbachev, together with the victimization of Yemenis, Sudanese and Palestinians whose authorities had opposed war - would have a keen sense of déjà vu.

The first signs of how unanimity was bought on this occasion are now coming to light. Russian forces can destroy the remains of Chechnya to the sound of Bush's endorsement in their ears. China now has its separatist movements labelled as terrorists by the US, and the State Department distances itself from its allies in Congress who call for the ousting of the Syrian regime. Through the "US African Growth and Opportunity Act" (2000), the US would eliminate its aid to the poorest countries if they "engage in activities that undermine United States national security or foreign policy interests". Whether this was mentioned in the numerous calls from Colin Powell to the leaders of Mauritius, Cameroon and Guinea remains to be disclosed, but the Mauritian ambassador at least was recalled to his country for not endorsing the US draft resolution with sufficient aplomb.

Whilst the US has now recruited its cooks, the new obligations that the resolution imposes on Iraq provide the recipe for war. Iraq has to provide a full inventory of all chemical and biological programmes in the country, including those with no military components, by 8th December. It is difficult to see how any country - even those, unlike Iraq, with a functioning civil service - could possibly compile and guarantee the validity of such a declaration, given the logistical problems that would be encountered. The weapons inspectors of Unmovic have the authority to declare "exclusion zones" for unlimited periods of time in Iraq, and for any stretch of territory, and to interview whoever they choose, taking them outside the country if they so wish.

Any inaccuracies in the 30-day declaration or delays in submitting to the demands of Unmovic would, in accordance with the resolution, constitute a "material breach" by Iraq. The US administration has already declared that it will decide by itself if Iraq has committed a material breach, and will take one as sufficient justification to commence military action. The resolution does not require Unmovic to report back to the UN until February 2003, and so the US has obtained sufficient freedom from the potential inconvenient opinions of independent experts.

The members of Security Council have chosen to provide the means to legitimate a war on Iraq. Anyone who had deferred their moral responsibility onto governments in trying to stop the US drive for war will have to reassess their position.