The world is poised on the edge of another Gulf war. It will be the first war to be fought over the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Despite countless United Nations Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN charter demanding Iraqs compliance, Iraq has remained in breach. This is not in dispute. Yet the Security Council is divided over the response to the flagrant challenge to its authority.
The UN has some serious thinking to do. The organisation is, put bluntly, between Iraq and a hard place. If the permanent members of the Security Council cannot agree, if the US and a coalition of the willing go to war without the required votes and without consensus among the Five, then the US will deem the UN irrelevant.
At the same time, if the Security Council always goes along with the bidding of the powerful, then the whole purpose of the UN is defeated.
Iraq: the logic of suspension
At times like these, we have to go back to basics. The United Nations charter was negotiated in San Francisco in 1945. It was a result of many meetings and drafts, and its purpose was clear. The UN exists to uphold peace and to save mankind from the scourge of war. Member states agree to take collective efforts for the prevention and removal of threats to peace in the world.
The UN Security Council is charged with the primary responsibility for peace and international security. Unanimity among the five permanent members was made necessary for the adoption of substantive Security Council resolutions so that the great powers (the United States and the Soviet Union) plus China, Britain and France would have to find agreement on matters of outstanding importance to the world.
At the time, and ever since, there was a debate on which countries should be allowed to join the UN. The universalists argued that membership of the UN was an automatic right of all nation states, whereas the conditionalists believed that nation states should pass a test of good behaviour as a condition of membership. The lobby for conditional membership won the day.
As a result of this debate, there are two articles in the UN Charter that could apply specifically to Iraq today. The first (Article 6) is outright expulsion from the organisation. The second (Article 5) and more interesting alternative in todays situation is suspension.
Restoring the UNs authority
Article 5 reads as follows: A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.
Iraq is under enforcement action (Chapter VII resolutions) taken by the Security Council and this, according to established legal opinion, makes a strong case for the application of Article 5.
If the UN Security Council invoked Article 5 in relation to Iraq, it would have at least six beneficial effects.
First, this would demonstrate the unanimity of the Security Council at a time when it is most needed.
Second, such action would show that the principles of the UN, as set out in its charter, have true worth and value.
Third, suspension of rights and privileges would demonstrate the determination of the UN to enforce its Chapter VII Security Council resolutions.
Fourth, the action would answer criticism of the UNs alleged irrelevance or political timidity.
Fifth, it would be a strong signal from the Council that Iraqs behaviour, its failure to comply with resolutions 687, 1284 and 1441 (among others), is intolerable even to states which do not support military action.
Sixth, it would show now and in the longer run that lack of compliance with UN Security Council resolutions carries serious repercussions; this would serve as a strong signal to others who may be tempted to treat the Council lightly.
Why does the UN exist?
The threat to invoke Article 5, or its actual invocation, would each be consistent with other attempts to deal with Iraq in a forceful manner. Existing decisions of the Security Council need not be affected.
Thus, if there is a delay in military action and if it is decided that weapons inspections could continue, invoking Article 5 would not jeopardise Unmovics work in Iraq. Inspections in Iraq could continue under the UN Charter, and Iraq would still have to comply with its obligations.
Recommending the suspension of Iraqs membership under Article 5 to the wider General Assembly would have unpredictable effects. The General Assembly would have a role in debating the issue; displeasure both with Iraq and other aspects of the current diplomatic debacle would find wider expression. Moreover, the application of Article 5 would require a two-thirds majority of the Assembly, and there is a risk that such a process could further split the United Nations.
At this critical moment, every member state has a view about the Iraqi issue. Divisions of opinion already exist. Yet the course of action suggested here could also serve to reunite the United Nations on the central tenets of its charter, and remind we the peoples of the very reasons for the UNs existence.
In politics and diplomacy as in individual life, not to act can pose the greater risks. The UN is not at a crossroads it is far worse than that. The organisation is teetering at the edge of a chasm. At the very least, whatever happens over the next few weeks, let the purpose of the UN be known and let those who abuse it and bring it to this point of jeopardy be suspended if not indeed expelled from it.