SAVING STRANGERS CASE STUDY:

IRAQ 1991Choi, JinTakada, ChikaMoon, Young Joo

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

1979 Iranian Revolution1980 Iran-Iraq War ~1988 ceasefire1990 Gulf War ~1991 ceasefire1991 Uprisings in Iraq

IRAN-IRAQ WAR(1980-1988) A long history of border disputes over the important

channel for oil’s exports Iraq first attacked Iran via air, taking advantage of the

political and military mess in Iran.

IRAN-IRAQ WAR(1980-1988)S

upporters

• Syria

Supporters

• Soviet Union• US• France• Saudi Arabia• Kuwait• Jordan

IranKhomeini

IraqHussein

IRAN-IRAQ WAR(1980-1988)

Features and Structures Shiite vs. Sunni Persia vs. Arab Intervening War to Islamic revolution by the Western countries and

the neighbors War ended with UN Security Council Resolution 598, which

brokered a cease fire agreement between Iran and Iraq.

IRAN-IRAQ WAR(1980-1988)

Al-Anfal Campaign (1986-1989): genocidal campaign against Kurds.

Destroyed 4500 Kurdish villages; rounded up and killed 100,000+ civilians, aerial bombing, chemical warfare; mass deportation (1million).

March 16,1988 - Halabja Chemical Attack Ali Hassan al-Majid – aka “Chemical Ali” (Saddam’s cousin) 14 chemical bombs (Cyanide, Mustard Gas, Nerve Gas) instantaneously killed more than 5,000 people, 10,000+

injuries, and severe aftereffects until today

GULF WAR(1990-1991)

Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait

UN Security Council operated Immediate economic sanction⇔IraqCoalition forces quickly came into Saudi Arabia (34 nations)

GULF WAR(1990-1991)S

upporters

• US• UK• Saudi Arabia• France• Canada• Egypt• Syria• Qatar• United Arab Emirates S

upporters

Kuwait Iraq

The UN Coalitionfrom 34 nations

GULF WAR(1990-1991) A quick and intensive war Intervention was justified by UN and public because

Iraqi violation of Kuwaiti territorial integrity April 3, 1991: Saddam Hussein accepted the ceasefire

agreement UNSC Resolution 687. Complied to the terms at the moment, but still held some military power under the ceasefire agreement.

UPRISINGS IN IRAQ(1991)

3-4 million Kurds in the northern Iraq

Shiites in the southern Iraq

UPRISINGS IN IRAQ(1991)Triggered by: Government Suppression: Constant brutal Iraqi repression

of Kurds and Shiites (even after the 1974 decree; which guaranteed the autonomy of 4million Kurds living in northern Iraq)

Devastation by Iran-Iraq War Assumption that the power of Saddam Hussein has weakened Radio stations set up in Saudi Arabia by CIA, calling on

people to overthrow Saddam Hussein Feb 15,1991: Encouragement by Bush on radio (inciting a

swift military coup to overthrow Saddam Hussein)

UPRISINGS IN IRAQ(1991) At one point, Kurdish rebels almost had control of northern Iraq and Shiites

in south seized most of the major cities

Saddam Hussein quickly reorganized his forces and regained control of the country (transporting forces via helicopters)

→ Retributive/appalling attacks against civilians→ Continued to attack Kurdish towns and villages

with chemical weapons→ 2 million refugees at mountains near the boarder

of Turkey & Iran→ 1,000 Kurds and Shiites died everyday

Kurdish Genocide (1988-1991):

March 16, 1988 Halabja Chemical Weapons Attack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj8wpeY47os

ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY: INITIAL RESPONSE

Unlike the Gulf War, where there was almost immediate response by the international community, there was no international rescue of the Kurds. No sanctions were imposed against Iraq and there was no authorization of international coalition. Gulf War ceasefire resolution (UNSC 687) contained nothing protecting the Kurds from Iraqi suppression.

April 2 and 4: Iran and Turkey brought in the issue before the Security Council. (fearing overflow of refugees)

Draft resolution submitted by France, Belgium, cosponsored by US and UK.

Informal consultations before voting on resolution 688: Humanitarian claims advanced by France for a ‘duty of intervention’ to protect the Kurds failed to secure support from other members of the Security Council, who feared it would weaken the non-intervention rule under Article 2(7).

However, it was apparent to many members of the Security Council that they had a responsibility to involve themselves in the humanitarian crisis inside Iraq.

Central Question: Whether the Security Council could legitimately address the humanitarian concerns raised by Iraq’s repression without violating the ban on UN intervention in the ‘domestic jurisdiction’ of states in Article 2 Section 7.

ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY: INITIAL RESPONSE

CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 7Members should not intervene in matters

which are within the domestic jurisdiction of sovereign states. (The norm of non-intervention).

この憲章のいかなる規定も、本質上いずれかの国の国内管轄権内にある事項に干渉する権限を国際連合に与えるものではなく、また、その事項をこの憲章に基く解決に付託することを加盟国に要求するものでもない。但し、この原則は、第 7 章に基く強制措置の適用を妨げるものではない。

Supported Iraq’s claim that Security Council was acting in violation of Article 2(7) by intervening in Iraq’s internal affairs. Humanitarian crisis inside Iraq did not pose a threat to international peace and security.

Crisis posed problems for Iraq’s neighbors, but other organs of the UN, not the Security Council, had jurisdiction to deal with the humanitarian situation and overflow of refugees.

Draft resolution set a ‘dangerous precedent’ by circumventing the non-intervention rule.

Opposing Member’s ArgumentsCuba, Yemen, Zimbabwe:

Transboundary implications of Iraq’s repression posed a threat to international peace and security, thus legitimating Security Council’s action.

However, anxious not to set a precedent that could be misused, members noted that Iraqi situation to be a special case in the aftermath of the Gulf War, and emphasized that Resolution 688 did not represent a weakening of their commitment to the non-intervention rule.

Supporting Member’s Arguments Austria, Belgium, Cote d’Ivoire, Ecuador, France, Romania, Soviet Union, UK, US, Zaire:

Argued that Article 2 Section 7 did not apply to human rights because they were not essentially ‘domestic’ or within the domestic jurisdiction.

Violation of human rights are of international interest, or non-domestic, because it is a crime against humanity.

Humanitarian ArgumentsUK and France:

UNSC RESOLUTION 688 April 5, 1991: UN Security Council Resolution 688

Ten members supported (Austria, Belgium, Cote d’Ivoire, Ecuador, France, Romania, Soviet Union, UK, US, Zaire), three vetoed (Cuba, Yemen, Zimbabwe), and two abstained (China and India).

UNSC Resolution 688 insisted that Iraq allow humanitarian relief agencies to operate inside Iraq.

UNSC Resolution 688 DID NOT expressly authorize military enforcement action.

APRIL 11- IRAQ WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TO SEND MILITARY FORCES NORTH OF THE 36TH PARALLEL AS ‘COALITION OFFICIALS WOULD BE OPERATING IN THOSE AREAS TO DISTRIBUTE HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THE KURDISH POPULATION’. ‘NO-FLY’ ZONE WAS SET UP OVER NORTHERN IRAQ

ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY: NON-ACTION

Initially, forcible intervention was not an option for Member States (b/c of many political, economical reasons, and Article 2 (7))

Having just taken forces out of Iraq, US and UK were reluctant to take action interfering with the ‘domestic’ affairs of Iraq.

Despite the fact that, the US found itself increasingly involved in the provision of relief to ensure Iraqi compliance with resolution 688. US feared a long-term commitment much like the Vietnam War.

April 12- President Bush still referring to situation as a “civil war” and “internal struggle” to deflect pressure to intervene; public opinion goes against him.

TIPPING POINT/CRUCIAL TURNING POINT

Sec of State Baker visits refugee camps; sees horrible conditions

Media Coverage: US/UK media brings attention to the problem and criticized Western governments for failing to rescue the Kurds.

Major (UK) and Bush (US): due to excessive media coverage they soon (just in 4days) changed their minds by providing armed protection for the Kurds inside northern Iraq.

ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY:

April 16 - Bush announces ‘Operation Provide Comfort’ Coalition forces (US: 5,000 UK: 2,000 France: 1,000 and Dutch

forces) were deployed to set up six ‘safe havens’ in the north to protect the Kurds.

Bush stressed the temporary nature of the operation by declaring that the ‘administration of and security for the sites’ would be handed over ‘as soon as possible to the United Nations’.

Legality of ‘Operation Provide Comfort’ questioned because Resolution 688 DID NOT expressly authorize military enforcement action.

ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY:

April 18- Memorandum of Understanding between UN and Iraqi government; allows humanitarian organizations to enter and deliver aid.

May 2- (concerned about prolonged presence) Major suggests UN police force to take over for the coalition forces.

May 11- Iraqi government rejects UN police force idea initially. But soon agrees to getting rid of coalition forces for deployment of 500 UN guards.

Mid-July - Withdrawals of coalition forces begins (21,700); No Fly Zone remains

Residual force: “Operation Poised Hammer”

[ACTION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY]

‘No-fly’ zone was set up over northern Iraq and coalition forces were deployed to set up 6 ‘safe havens’ to protect the Kurds. One year later, southern no-fly zones were created to protect the persecuted Shiites in the south, but no safe havens were set up (‘Operation Southern Watch’).

LEGALITY OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY: Intervention was legitimated as being in conformity with

humanitarian concerns but legality of action under the norm of non-intervention was questioned.

Coalition forces claimed Resolution 688 allowed them to use force to save the Kurds

Furthermore, subsequent Western plans replacing their forces with armed UN guards were publicly contested by UN and Soviet Union as exceeding the authority of 688.

Looking at the legality issue from the Solidarist/Counter-Restrictionist’s POV, Resolution 688 did give legitimate authority for Member States to intervene.

ONLY EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 2 SECTION 7:CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 42 – USE OF FORCE

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 [Sanctions] would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

安全保障理事会は、第４１条に定める措置では不十分であろうと認め、又は不十分なことが判明したと認めるときは、国際の平和及び安全の維持又は回復に必要な空軍、海軍又は陸軍の行動をとることができる。この行動は、国際連合加盟国の空軍、海軍又は陸軍による示威、封鎖その他の行動を含むことができる。

UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 688: APRIL 5, 1991.

1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 688: APRIL 5, 1991.

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to removing the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression, and in the same context express the hope that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected:

UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 688: APRIL 5, 1991.

3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organization to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and make available all necessary facilities for their operations.

UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 688: APRIL 5, 1991.

5. Also requests the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;

6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;

Central Question: Whether the Security Council could legitimately address the humanitarian concerns raised by Iraq’s repression without violating the ban on UN intervention in the ‘domestic jurisdiction’ of states in Article 2 Section 7.

Answer: UNSC Resolution 688 contained the language of a threat to ‘international peace and security’ (the trigger word activating the enforcement provision of Chapter 7 Article 42), which invoked, not explicitly, the use of force under Chapter 7 Article 42 (the only exception to Article 2(7)).

FAILURES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

Overall very successful – one of the most successful humanitarian intervention after the Cold War

Reasonably met the three objectives of saving the Kurds in northern Iraq: 1) bringing humanitarian aid to refugees dying on the mountains. 2) getting the Kurds down from the mountains and into the safe havens. 3) creating a security environment that made it possible for the Kurds to return to their homes

FAILURES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

1. Failure of protecting the Shiites: Southern NFZ came a year after, and no safe havens were

created

The international community was only successful in establishing safe havens for the Kurds in northern Iraq.

They failed miserably not only to provide safe havens for the Shiites in southern Iraq but also failed to make air attacks to those Iraqi military forces shelling the Shiites.

The reasons for failure include mix of logistic and political reasons, and the greater population of the Shiites.

FAILURES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

2. Failure of leaving Saddam Hussein in Power: Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was not an objective of this

humanitarian intervention but….

At the end to the Gulf War, UNSC Resolution 687 allowed Saddam Hussein with some military power. The provision allowing him to use helicopters was one of the key reasons how he was able kill so many Kurds and Shiites and took control of the 1991 uprisings.

Saddam Hussein continued to threaten the international peace and security for the next 10+ years.

FAILURES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

3. Abandonment of the Kurds and Shiites:

The CIA and Bush incited the Kurds and Shiites to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein

However, once the uprising started Bush referred to the situation as an “internal struggle” and did not intervene.

While 2 milliion refugees were up at the mountains and thousands of refugees were dying everyday.

The Kurds were rescued because Major and Bush realized that to leave them to their fate would be unacceptable in the eyes of public opinion.

CONCLUSION UNDER THE WHEELER CRITERIA - KURDS

Short Term Long TermSupreme Humanitarian

Emergency Necessity/Last Resort

Proportionality

Positive Humanitarian Outcome

Humanitarian Motives

Humanitarian Justifications

Legality

Selectivity

CONCLUSION UNDER THE WHEELER CRITERIA - SHIITES

Short Term Long TermSupreme Humanitarian

Emergency Necessity/Last Resort

Proportionality

Positive Humanitarian Outcome

Humanitarian Motives

Humanitarian Justifications

Legality

Selectivity

SITUATION IN IRAQ TODAY

2003 Iraq War : War on Terrorism. Operation Iraqi Freedom – Saddam Hussein was overthrown. The Ba'ath Party was removed from power and multi-party parliamentary elections were held. Violence between Shiites and the Sunnis momentarily escalated

2005 - Iraq elected its first Kurdish president, Jalal Talabani December 30, 2006 - execution of Saddam Hussein 2007: the Article 140 of the 2005 Iraqi Constitution finally

recognized the Kurdistan Region/Iraqi Kurdistan as a “federal entity” of Iraq.

October 11, 2011 – President Obama announces that all remaining U.S. troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year

Today: Almost daily explosions, suicide bombings, car bombs, etc. Violent conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites, and Kurdish territorial disputes still continue to be an ongoing problem.

HTTP://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=A7KKX9DOMJO

Secretary of Defense1989–1993

Dick Cheney

Speech in 1992

Thank you for listening!