Marcel Gross

2/25/04
Guayaquil – Ecuador
Stumbling into Iraq
After the 9/11 attacks, the USA created a big coalition of countries to
support them in the Afghanistan war. Even though the war didn’t have the
expected results, it was seen as a great success of diplomacy.

A year-and-a-half later it all changed when Bush was at it again, now
against Iraq.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Now it was very different, the USA did not pay much attention to the
diplomatic procedures to take before engaging in this new conflict.

There should not have to be as much opposition, considering the fact that
there was a clear violation of the UN Security Council resolution and that
Bush was not the only one to point out the imminent threat of Iraq’s WMD,
as Clinton had already done it some time ago.

Many reasons caused the negative of the Security resolution, the different
excuses given by the US government, the build-up of military forces around
the Persian Gulf, the negative from the US to extend the deadline to the UN
team in Iraq headed by Hans Blix and many others caused the members of the
world community and most important, the members of the UN Security Council
to say NO.

In the year 2002, the US had made a huge advance related to this matter in
the Security Council, when they approved the resolution 1441 that commanded
Iraq to destroy many of their long-range missiles and let the UN inspectors
to enter Iraq to verify the probability of the creation of WMD. Many of the
most important issues were left out of the discussions, such as the
question if the USA would need a second resolution to invade Iraq or the
1441 would suffice? , This was never thought out carefully by the US
diplomacy and it would turn out to be a very costly mistake.

Bush had many reasons besides the threats of WMD to invade Iraq, such as
the elimination of a murderous dictatorial regime that could be the host
for illegal groups and would probably have close links with Osama bin
Laden, to make Saddam to take UN resolutions seriously as an example for
the rest of the world and to bolster democracy in the middle east. But Bush
had not given another example of bolstering democracy elsewhere, why didn’t
they bolster democracy in Saudi Arabia, being such a friendly country.

The members of the Permanent Security Council and of the transitory council
represented the opinions of the world, and they saw a US eager to go to war
with or without resolution.

The troops were lining up the Arabian Sea, weeks after the decision in the
UN.

The only thing that the members of the S.C. wanted was an extension of 4 to
9 months in the deadline, so that the UN weapons inspectors would have time
to present proper information to back-up the decision of the S.C.

The world certainly didn’t need the mockery of Rumsfeld and the flaws of
Dick Chenney, pressuring the countries to take the “proper” resolution and
blackmailing them with those famous phrases that even today we gladly
remember such as: “YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US”, certainly it was
not very well taken by the members of the S.C.

Finally, when the USA decided to take the procedures to get the second
resolution approved by the UN, as a personal petition of Tony Blair, they
saw it crash it down when Paris, Berlin and Moscow joined together in the
idea that with the inspectors Iraq was not in the position of making new or
even using old WMD.

The European countries regard international law as of vital importance in
their every day existence, but as they knew it very well, Bush was not a
fan of these international treaties, as he showed it with the annulment of
the Kyoto Protocol, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, the Comprehensive
Test Ban treaty, the Biological weapons convention, the international
criminal court waiver to US soldier and finally the declaration of Rumsfeld
of not using the Geneva treaty for the captured soldiers in Guantanamo
base.

The worrying thing was that the members of the R.S.C. didn’t event get a
visit from Collin Powell to try to sell them their agenda, and as a result
they didn’t even get the approval from Turkey at the start of the war to
have a front of attack from the north, something that was assured by the US
diplomats.

Even Jose Maria Aznar, a stalwart ally of USA said in some occasion: ” WE
NEED A LOT MORE OF POWELL AND A LOT LESS OF RUMSFELD”.

Wheter it was incompetence or ideology, Washington inconsistency on their
justifications for war, the non-synchronizing of diplomacy and force, the
non-proactive action of the possible partial compliance of Iraq with the
UN, the impossibility to muster international support for the second
resolution and to sell the US reasons to war to the international diplomacy
constituted the defeat of the US foreign policy.

A war with greater legitimacy would have put Iraq on the spotlight and not
the United States. Now the USA have to really worry that so many countries
hoped the Iraq would have been a better contender, that they would have put
much more resistance, that they would have killed more US soldiers and
eventually drag them out of the conflict and ask themselves, what would
happen the next time the USA would want to do the same with another country
that is “threatening” US security? Will it have more adepts to Rumsfeld
mockery policy, or Chenney blackmailing strategies? Or will the USA learned
the diplomatic importance and will it learn to appreciate the international
support and realize that we live in a symbiosis and that they are not the
only country in this world and learned to live in a joined community.


This essay has impacted and will continue to impact the lives of millions
of people around the world, because through this essay we can see what
would the consequences be if a nation neglect to pay attention to the
diplomatic field, when dealing with other nations. It also shows how would
and how will the opinion and relations of the world would deter when a
nation sees themselves as omnipotent and not obligated to subordinate
themselves to a common international law and see it as below them and a way
how to stop future preemptive attacks to destroy those countries that one
might think is endangering the security of one’s country. What would happen
when China, India, Pakistan or North Korea would take exactly the same
decision as the US did with their “enemies”? Will it be the start of the
end?
———————–
Marcel Gross
Marcel Gross
Marcel Gross
1
2
4
5

x

Hi!
I'm Morris!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out