Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines:1998: Involvement in the Gulf: should Australia have agreed to send troops to support the United States' proposed military action against Iraq?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click here for a list of items relevant to this topic, from the Echo's Year 2002 file.
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
Should the United States take pre-emptive military action against Iraq?
What they said ...
'We must be ready for pre-emptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives'
United States President, George Bush
'President Bush's clear wish to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq should be approached with extreme caution. At the very least America's friends and allies should emphasise that a UN Security Council resolution is essential before beginning such a war'
Former Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser
The issue at a glance
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has demonstrated a new resolve to take action to defend itself. President Bush has announced what he declares is a 'war on terror'. One of the first elements of this campaign was the attack on Afghanistan, the nation believed to be harbouring key members of the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda judged responsible for the September 11 attacks.
In this action the United States did not act unilaterally, but as part of a coalition of nations, including the United Kingdom, France and Australia. The fact that the United States acted in concert was seen by some as a key factor legitimising the use of force against Afghanistan.
At the beginning of 2002, the United States President announced his readiness to take unilateral, pre-emptive action against Iraq. This foreshadowed move has provoked much debate within his own country and around the world.
Great Britain, one of the United States principal supporters, has indicated that the United States should only take military action against Iraq acting as an agent of the United Nations.
President Bush has now requested of the United Nations Security Council that it issue an ultimatum to Iraq demanding that it allow United Nations weapons inspectors back in. The implication would appear to be that if such a demand were not meet it would be back up be armed force. The United States could be expected to take the lead in such an action.
Despite the partial softening of President Bush's position, the debate over what action, if any, should be taken over Iraq continues to rage.
Background
Chronology of events
1980: Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, attacked the oil-reserves of Iran, and initiated the Iran-Iraq war. At this point Iraq was an ally of the United States.
1988: A cease-fire was declared between Iran and Iraq.
August 2, 1990: Iraq invaded neighbouring Kuwait.
6 August 1990: The United Nations condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. These sanctions included a full trade embargo, stopping all imports from and exports to Iraq except for food, medicine and humanitarian supplies. These sanctions have remained in place.
January 16, 1991: Acting under the auspices of the United Nations, American-led air troops began bombing Baghdad. This was the beginning of the 1991 Gulf War.
February 1991: The Gulf War ended with the declaration of a cease-fire by United States President George Bush senior.
April 1991: The United Nations Security Council condemned repressive measures exercised by the Iraqi regime against civilians, and demanded access for humanitarian groups.
At the end of the war, uprisings against the regime by Kurds in northern Iraq and Shia Muslims in the south were brutally suppressed by the Iraqi military.
August 1991: Oil-for-Food
The United Nations proposed allowing Iraq to export up to $1.6bn of oil, the revenue from which would be paid into a UN-administered account.
This could only be used to buy food, medicines and other essential material for a six-month period.
Some of this account would be used to meet compensation payments to Kuwait and the cost of UN operations.
August 1991: Weapons inspectors
The United Nations passed a resolution demanding Iraq allow Unscom and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) immediate and unconditional access to any areas they wish to inspect.
Iraq was also ordered to not to move or attempt to hide anything relating to its nuclear, chemical or biological programmes
April 1995: The Oil-for-Food program became on going.
September 11, 2001: Terrorists, belonging to Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization, hijacked four United States commercial passenger planes and flew them into the World Trade Centre in New York City and the Pentagon in Virginia. The fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania. (No link has been established between Iraq and these attacks on the United States.)
October 7, 2001-Present: In response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, American and British forces launched attacks on Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.
January 2002: President George Bush junior, in his State of the Union address referred to 'an axis of evil', this being those countries the United States believed were primarily responsible for terrorism. Iraq was included in this 'axis of evil'.
Key terms
1. Unilateral
Performed by only one party. In this case a unilateral attack by the United States on Iraq would be an attack conducted only by the United States, without the direction of the United Nations and not acting as part of an international alliance.
2. Pre-emptive
Intended to prevent attack by disabling the enemy. In this case, any pre-emptive attack on Iraq would be one made in advance of military or terrorist action taken by Iraq against other nations. The object of such a pre-emptive attack would be to destroy Iraq's capacity to attack other nations.
3. Regime change
This has been one of President Bush declared aims in his statements on Iraq. A regime is a ruling body or a system of government. The United States is anxious to remove Saddam Hussein and his supporters from power in Iraq. This is what is usually meant by 'regime change' as applied to Iraq.
Internet information
The British news site BBC has a large number of items dealing directly with Iraq and proposed United States action against that nation.
In February 2002 the BBC produced a news item titled 'US considers ousting Saddam'. This reported on discussion within the United States as to what action should be taken against Saddam Hussein.
The item can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1820443.stm
In March 2002 the BBC produced a news item titled 'Washington's case against Saddam'. This gives a detailed overview of the claims made by the United States against Iraq and considers the extent to which they can be justified.
This item can be found at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1853860.stm
Also in March 2002 the BBC produced a news item titled 'Saddam's rusting arsenal'. This is an attempt to give a current assessment of Iraq's military capacity and suggests the extent of the threat posed by Iraq may be exaggerated.
This item can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1866944.stm
In September 2002 the BBC produced a very valuable summary of all the United Nations' resolutions regarding Iraq since Iraq 1990 invasion of Kuwait. This overview also gives direct links to the United Nations resolutions themselves. Thus interested students can read them in full.
This summary can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2246037.stm
Also in September 2002 the BBC produced an analysis titled 'What will the inspectors do?' This outlined what the intended role of UN weapons inspectors would be should they be re-admitted to Iraq.
This item can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2263680.stm
On September 13, 1999, the United States Department of State released an executive summary outlining its case against Iraq. This has since been updated on March 24, 2000. The index page for this summary includes links to sections titled 'Impact of sanctions'. 'Repressions of Iraqi people' and 'War crimes'.
This is a very detailed an valuable document outlining the American position re Iraq before September 11. 2001.
This document can be found at http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99.htm
Arguments against the United States taking pre-emptive military action against Iraq
1. Such a war would destabilise the region
There are many who fear that a United States attack on Iraq will do nothing to guarantee the safety of the United States or its allies and that it will have the effect of further destabilising the Middle East.
This point has been made by Paul Kelly, editor-at of The Australian. Mr Kelly has argued that in a war between Iraq and the United States, 'Many innocent people may be killed and Hussein will try to regionalise the war, his 1991 ploy. Unilateral intervention will be seen to be illegitimate ... within Islam. Most Arab leaders have no time for Hussein but fear their peoples will be radicalised and that hatred towards the US will intensify.'
2. Such a war might destroy Islamic support for the destruction of al-Qaeda
It has been suggested that an American assault on Iraq could threaten the support base the United States has achieved for its attack on al-Qaeda, the group most closely associated with the September 11 attacks. Crucial to this support is Pakistan, a Muslim nation and neighbour of Afghanistan's that has acted as an unofficial sanctuary for terrorist escaping Afghanistan. The loss of official support from Pakistan would make it far harder for the United States to continue track down key members of al-Qaeda.
Further, having the support of other Muslim nations in their 'war against terror' has helped to legitimise the United States led campaign. If the Muslim world comes to believe that any one of their number is potentially under attack this could serve to unravel Islamic support for the destruction of al-Qaeda. Such a development would be particularly regrettable as it may serve to encourage any terrorist groups operating in these nations.
3. Attacking Iraq might provoke further terrorism
It has been suggested that a war against Iraq, following the attack against Afghanistan, might well be interpreted as an attack an Islam and as such could provoke, rather than reduce the likelihood of, further terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies.
The manner such an attack on Iraq might be seen within the Arab world has been indicated by Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of Al-Quds, a London-based newspaper with an Arab readership. Abdel-Bari Atwan has written, 'President Bush is today calling for replacing Arafat. Tomorrow he will send frigates and planes to remove Saddam Hussein and on the day after he will point Israel at Syria and Lebanon ... The day after that he will accuse President Mubarak ... The US president will then choose the colour of our clothes, what food we eat, and maybe even whom we can marry.'
Martin Woollacott, a writer on international affairs for The Guardian, has argued that no one yet knows 'whether a war on Iraq will increase or decrease the chances of terrorist attacks on Western cities outside the USA.'
Critics maintain that while a war on Iraq may have the opposite effect on world safety to that supposedly intended by the United States it should not be undertaken.
Relatedly it has been argued that rather than a military assault, what the United States needs to do is alter the worldview of the Arab world, adopting a genuinely even-handed position in its dealings with Israel and Palestine, and engaging in dialogue rather than stand-offs with Arab nations in particular and Islam in general. It has further been argued that establishing strong economic ties with Islamic states and attempting to promote their economic development is a more effective means of countering terrorism. In its editorial of September 7, 2002, The Australian stated, 'If there is to be a clash of civilisations, the facture lines are more likely to be between rich and poor countries than between religions and ideologies.'
Shahram Akbarzadeh, a post-doctoral fellow at the school of political and social inquiry at Monash University, has claimed, 'Defeating terrorism by military means is an illusion pure and simple.'
4. It has not been demonstrated that Iraq represents a significant threat
Some of the strongest critics of a possible attack on Iraq by the United States argue that Iraq has neither weapons of mass destruction (normally thought to refer to poisonous gas and biological weapons) nor a nuclear capacity. Others claim that whatever weapons Iraq may have it has no capacity to launch them at the United States. From either position Iraq is held to represent no significant threat to America, and so, it is claimed, there is no justification for a pre-emptive attack.
One of the key exponents of this position is Scott Ritter, former head of the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq. Mr Ritter has testified before the United States Congress, 'when you judge Iraq's current weapons of mass destruction capabilities today, they have none. In terms of long-range ballistic missiles ... Iraq no longer has these missiles. They have been disarmed. In terms of missile production facilities ... these facilities have either been destroyed, dismantled ... under strict monitoring by the weapons inspectors. The same holds true with the chemical weapons.'
A very similar point has been made by Israel Defence minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who has stated, 'One should not overstate the Iraq threat. True, Baghdad has certain capabilities in the strategic sphere that could combine surface-to-surface missiles with chemical and biological capabilities but, as far as can be assessed, the number of transport platforms - planes or missiles - is not big.'
Further, critics note, no link has ever been established between the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States and Iraq.
5. The United States has no right to act unilaterally
It has been pointed out repeatedly that an unprovoked unilateral attack by the United States on Iraq would be in violation of international law. Any pre-emptive attack by one nation state against another is a breach of international law. The only basis on which such an assault could be legally waged is if it were made in response to a United Nations Security Council resolution. Former South African president Nelson Mandela has made this point. It has also been made by former Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser.
In an article published in The Age on September 12, 2002, Mr Fraser stated, 'President Bush's clear wish to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq should be approached with extreme caution. At the very least America's friends and allies should emphasise that a UN Security Council resolution is essential before beginning such a war. That is the only protection against a partisan and unjust application of power ... Relying on America alone is no protection of legality or democracy ... If we are to establish a world governed by law and reason, by the application of justice, we cannot divert from principle on the grounds of present-day convenience.'
6. The United States would be pursuing its economic interests in attacking Iraq
It has been suggested that one of the United States' reasons for seeking a 'regime change' in Iraq is that Iraq has large oil reserves that the United States would like to be able to exploit on favourable terms.
This point has been made by commentator, Terry Lane, in an article published in the Age on September 8, 2002.
Terry Lane has stated, 'The people of Iraq sit on a great reservoir of oil. All the blather about non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the perils of appeasement may deceive the ignorant and may be necessary for preserving the fantasy of democratic approval, but we know what it is really all about.'
Lane supports his claim that oil is what is really at issue by stating that there is nothing unique about the brutal Saddam Hussein and his repressive regime. Lane claims, 'there have been many homicidal megalomaniacs in many parts of the world over the years' whom the United States has either aligned itself with or failed to challenge. The conclusion Lane draws is 'So homicidal megalomania on its own is no reason to launch pre-emptive strikes.'
It has also been claimed that no link has been established between the attacks on the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001, and the regime of Saddam Hussein. This point has been made by the editor of Jane's Intelligence Digest, who has stated, 'You can think whatever you like about Saddam but he is not so foolish that hen would threaten his own region's stability by financing the extreme and violent likes of al-Qaeda.'
This argument has been used to support the claim that the United States is primarily pursuing its economic interests rather than its defence interests in any attack on Iraq.
Kenneth Davidson, in an article published in the Age on September 12, 2002, argued, 'So far, neither George Bush nor Tony Blair have come up with any reason that could justify a first strike against Iraq - except the instated (because it is unacceptable) reason that "regime change" would give America control of Iraq's 100 billion barrels of oil reserves.'
Arguments in favour of Iraq taking pre-emptive military action against Iraq
1. Iraq is developing chemical and biological weapons
This point has been made by United States president George Bush, by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and by Australia's Prime Minister John Howard. Mr Howard has stated, 'There is no doubt that Iraq has pursued weapons of mass destruction.'
Mr Howard has further stated, 'Australian intelligence agencies advise Iraq has continued attempts to procure equipment, material and technologies that could assist its (weapons of mass destruction) programs.'
It has been claimed that Iraq has made covert attempts to procure chemicals and production equipment used for chemical warfare and has rebuilt chemical production facilities at Fallujah since 1998.
Former American Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, has stated that it is imperative that the United States, alone or in concert, takes pre-emptive action against Iraq. One of the reasons for this, Kissinger claims, is that unless America takes such action the message will be sent to all potential terrorists that the United States is experiencing a failure of will and that it is effectively allowing its declared enemies to stockpile weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Kissinger has stated, 'The unimpaired continuation of these stockpiles for more than a decade after the Gulf War and in the face of blatant evasion of weapons restraints imposed by the United Nations as a condition of the armistice would symbolise to terrorists and their supporters a lack of will or ability of threatened societies to defend themselves.'
2. Iraq is developing a nuclear capacity
It has further been claimed that in addition to its potential chemical and biological weapons, Iraq may be developing a nuclear capacity.
Australian intelligence sources have indicated that Iraq has recently tried to buy material 'consistent with efforts to resume a uranium enrichment program.'
Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has stated that, 'Australian intelligence agencies believe that if Iraq obtained fissile material from overseas its nuclear ambitions could be achieved in months.'
Australian intelligence source have also noted that Iraq is developing short-range ballistic missiles, which puts it in breach of UN resolutions.
In an editorial published on September 11, 2002, The Herald Sun stated, 'The prospect of Saddam Hussein being left free to amass nuclear and biological weapons, which he could use to satisfy his own brutal ends or to arm terrorists, is frightening beyond belief.'
3. Iraq refuses to allow United Nations' weapons inspectors into the country
UN weapons inspectors were placed in Iraq as part of the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. The aim of such inspectators was to prevent Iraq developing a capacity to produce and launch weapons of mass destruction.
During the period over which the inspectors operated, they constantly complained that their efforts were being frustrated by restrictions the Iraqi government placed on what factories they were able to inspect and where they were able to look for weapons arsenals.
In the event, the threat of war in Iraq prompted UN inspectors to withdraw from the country. Iraq has since refused to readmit inspectors. The Iraqi government has claimed that these inspectors exceeded their authority and that some functioned as spies for foreign governments, most notably the United States. This refusal on the part of Iraq to allow weapons inspectors back into the country puts Iraq in breach of a United Nations resolution.
The United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has met with Saddam Hussein's representatives three times this year to demand that inspectors be allowed back into the country. On each occasion the Iraqi government has refused.
Australia's Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has claimed that the central issue is Iraq's failure to comply with UN resolutions aimed at preventing the development of weapons of mass destruction.
On September 16, Mr Howard stated that the Australian Foreign Minister, who had recently meet with the Iraqi Foreign Minister in New York, had advised him that there was no 'substantial change in Iraq's position on the central question of weapons inspection.'
Mr Howard has asked, 'If Iraq has nothing to hide, why won't it let new weapons inspections take place?'
4. Iraq cannot be allowed to ignore United Nations' directives
It has been argued that the United Nations will be seriously damaged if it continues to allow Iraq to ignore its resolutions.
This is the position put by the United States president when he addressed the United Nations. President Bush argued that unless the United Nations were prepared to make strong demands of brutal and peace-threatening leaders such as Saddam Hussein and unless it were prepared to back up such demands, if necessary with force, it was in danger of becoming irrelevant.
Michael Costello, secretary of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has made this point. Mr Costello has stated, 'If the UN Security Council won't enforce its own resolutions against Iraq, the whole UN collective security system will be badly wounded, perhaps ... the risks of inaction to the future credibility and effectiveness of the UN are [great].'
5. Iraq has not responded to non-military pressure
Iraq has been repeatedly asked by the United Nations to readmit weapons inspectors. This includes three requests made in 2002. Iraq has refused each of these demands.
In September 2002 the Arab League asked Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors into his country. This request was refused. At the same time Russia, China ands the European Union also requested that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors. These requests were also denied.
Trade sanctions have been imposed on Iraq over a number of years. These have had very damaging effects on the Iraqi economy and population; however, they have not led to Saddam Hussein allowing weapons inspectors to re-enter his country.
Supporters of military action against Iraq argue that this history of failure for non-military pressure on Iraq indicates that Saddam Hussein is extremely unlikely to readmit inspectors unless forced to do so.
6. The United States is not acting unilaterally
Up to this point the United States has not acted unilaterally. Its actions against Afghanistan were taken in conjunction with an international coalition. Though President Bush may have spoken of acting unilaterally against Iraq, as with Afghanistan, he has began assembling a group of sympathetic nations to support the United States in any action it might take against Saddam.
More significantly President Bush has addressed the United Nations and urged it in the strongest possible terms to enforce its resolutions requiring Iraq to accept weapons inspectors.
Many of President Bush's supporters note that his demands upon the United Nations indicate his willingness to abide by international law and to accept the conventions of the United Nations.
Further implications
The implications of this issue are enormous.
The way in which it is played out will have long-term consequences for the continued viability of the United Nations. Should the most powerful nation in the world, the United States, decide that United Nations Security Council resolutions serve no effective purpose, this would be extremely damaging for the United Nations. Even more damaging would be a United States' decision that the United Nations was essentially irrelevant and that America should take action against Iraq without regard to the United Nations.
The UN is in a position where it is extremely difficult for it to emerge unscathed. Even if a United Nations Security Council resolution is ultimately passed demanding that Iraq re-admit weapons inspectors or face military action, this resolution is likely to be seen as having been passed in response to United States' pressure. This would damage the supposed independence of the United Nations.
Much seems likely to depend on the political situation within the United States. There appears to be a growing movement in America opposing pre-emptive action against Iraq. Included in this group are some prominent members of Bush's own administration.
There is also far from unanimous international support for miliary action against Iraq. Australia has indicated its general willingness to support the United States in whatever action it might take. However, Australia is not a major player on the world stage. Britain appears to have made support conditional upon the United States acting under the auspices of the United Nations, while other key members of the European Union are far more luke-warm about a belligerent American position.
Much also depends on the willingness of Saddam Hussein to make significant concessions to United Nations' demands. Should he be prepared to re-admit weapons inspectors the prospect of Iraq being attacked would virtually disappear.
Finally, were Iraq found to be involved in any major terrorist activity in any part of the world, but particularly directed against Westerners, its position would become extremely precarious.
Sources
The Age
6/9/02 page 13 comment by Hugh White, 'Bush heads for the UN: it's the week the world went back to normal'
7/9/02 page 4 comment by Janet McCalman, 'Shocking events serve some good in coming of age'
8/9/02 page 16 comment by Terry Lane, 'Nasty truths about a crude war'
9/9/02 page 10 editorial, 'The US should not go it alone on Iraq'
9/9/02 page 11 comment by Martin Woollacott, 'Who will be safe after Iraq?'
10/9/02 page 11 comment by Geoffrey Robertson, 'On Iraq: make law, not war'
11/9/02 page 7 news item by Dana priest, 'CIA fails to find Iraqi link to terror'
12/9/02 page 17 comment by Kenneth Davidson, 'America's war record is littered with lies'
12/9/02 page 17 comment by Malcolm Fraser, 'Bush imperils democracy'
13/9/02 page 11 comment by Tom Mangold, 'Why Iraq inspections won't work'
13/9/02 page 13 comment by Anatol Lieven, 'Bush spurns Cold war lessons'
13/9/02 page 13 comment by Des Moore, 'The UN won't stop the US doing what must be done'
13/9/02 page 13 comment by George Bush, 'America's cause is the hope of all mankind'
14/9/02 page 17 comment by Tony Parkinson, 'If the UN fails to back Bush it will lose what little credibility it has'
15/9/02 page 1 news item by Caroline Overington and Michelle Grattan, 'UN key on Iraq - poll'
16/9/02 page 13 comment by Kenneth Davidson, 'And we still await a credible case for war, Mr President'
17/9/02 page 1 news item by Mark Forbes, 'We have evidence on Iraq'
17/9/02 page 15 comment by Robert Kagan, 'Multiculturalism, American style'
The Australian
9/9/02 page 11 comment by Glenn Milne, 'Dancing to an American tune'
9/9/02 page 11 comment by Shahram Akbarzadeh, 'There's more to Muslim societies than radicalism'
11/9/02 page 13 comment by Paul Kelly, 'First strike on Iraq could backfire'
12/9/02 page 11 comment by Tim Blair, 'US-bashers a bizarre bunch'
12/9/02 page 11 comment by Michael Costello, 'Enforce Security Council resolutions or the UN will die'
The Herald Sun
9/9/02 page 21 comment by Andrew Bolt, 'D-day for Saddam'
11/9/02 page 24 editorial, 'The price of doing nothing'
12/9/02 page 19 comment by Andrew Bolt, 'Stars and gripes'