Law Triumphs over Force - For the Moment U.N. Iraq Resolution Does Not Authorize Use of Force
by David Krieger and Devon Chaffee*, November 9, 2002

After months of pressure from the United States, its most powerful member, the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution on Iraq that falls far short of the authorization sought by the US for use of force against Iraq.

The Security Council Resolution on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was passed Friday, November 8, 2002. It outlines a rigorous inspection regime as a “final opportunity” for Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations. The regime gives enhanced authority to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors in their attempts to verify disarmament within Iraq. Under the resolution Iraq is to confirm its intention to comply with the new regime within seven days and provide a detailed declaration of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction program within 30 days.

The resolution makes no mention of the use of force should Iraq fail to comply with the enhanced requirements. After strong insistence by council members such as France, Russia and Mexico, the final resolution states that the Security Council remains seized of the matter and would convene to consider an Iraqi breach of the new inspection regime. The resolution also contains a clear reference to the commitment of all UN members to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. The United States would be in clear breach of the United Nations Charter should it decide to take military action without further Security Council approval.

Though Iraq has been singled out by the Security Council in the recent resolution, the principles behind the resolution of complete disarmament, verification and absolute transparency are clearly applicable to all countries that possess or seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including the five permanent members of the Security Council. In accord with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nearly all countries have clear obligations to end proliferation efforts and to disarm (only India, Israel and Pakistan are not yet parties to this treaty).

The Security Council resolution has been successful in containing the calls for war against Iraq by the United States and Great Britain insofar as both countries have lauded the resolution and agreed to allow the Security Council to consider violations before they would wage a military attack. Also, in recent comments the Bush administration has shifted its stance and is referring to disarmament more than regime change as the principal US objective in Iraq.

The Bush administration has previously made statements that it did not intend to allow the United Nations to interfere with its intentions towards Iraq. Recent Congressional elections may have bolstered the president’s confidence in this unilateralist position.

Bush was recently quoted in the Washington Post as stating, “I don't spend a lot of time taking polls around the world to tell me what I think is the right way to act. I just got to know how I feel.” Such statements are presumably meant to indicate that contrary international opinion will not prevent him from taking military action against Hussein. The new Security Council resolution does, however, tie Bush’s hands from using force against Iraq absent interference by Iraq with UN weapons inspectors and further approval by the Security Council.

*David Krieger is a founder and president of The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Devon Chaffee is the research and advocacy coordinator.