us-un relations: iraq occupation

8/10/2019 US-UN Relations: Iraq occupation

1/15

Contents

Contents......................................................................................................................................1

Introduction................................................................................................................................2

International relations theories...................................................................................................2

Realism...................................................................................................................................3

Liberalism..............................................................................................................................4

The United Nations....................................................................................................................5

The United States of merica....................................................................................................!

The "ush #ears$Liberal or Realist%........................................................................................&

US$UN relations......................................................................................................................'

Ira(...........................................................................................................................................1)

Conclusion................................................................................................................................11

1


2/15

Introduction

There is no doubt that the United States of merica *as instrumental in the formation of the

United Nations in the aftermath of the Second +orld +ar. It can be ar,ued that this mo-e *as

aimed at re-entin, another ma/or *ar. The collase of the So-iet Union resulted in a

uniolar *orld *ith the United States of merica 0US as he,emon#. ollo*in, the 2))1

attac on merica resident "ush resonded b# in-adin, Ira( unilaterall#. 6ifferent

International Relations 0IR theories ha-e tried to e7lain *h# a countr# *hich had fostered

multilateralism in creatin, the United Nations *ould attac a countr# -ie*ed as not of a

threat b# some scholars. +as it that the US had forsaen liberalism in fa-our of realism%

8ad "ush embared on offensi-e liberal olicies to consolidate its he,emon# status%

9aroui 02)12 concluded that the attac *as mainl# due to materialistic interests *hile Siers

in his essa# said that the *ar *as a result of offensi-e liberalistic inclination of the "ush

administration. 8e *ent on to (uote Risse 02))4:22& ;do,$eat$do,> *orld. "ut there is also another ,rou of neoconser-ati-e ha*s *ho are

reared to use merican o*er... to construct a *orld order based on liberal democracies

uni-ersal human ri,hts and merican$st#le caitalism.? There is still contention o-er the

International Relations theor# *hich best e7lains the forei,n olic# decisions of the "ush

administration.

International relations theories

The search for the causes of *ar resulted in International Relations 0IR theories. +alt@

01A5A anal#sed the causes of *ar b# introducin, three le-els$man state and the international

2


3/15


4/15

In this li,ht States are rational actors *ho see sur-i-al in an uncertain en-ironment in *hich

States *ith more o*er are decisi-e. This results in the suosition that international la* and

international institutions do not constrain or shae State beha-iour. -en in the resence of

international la*s and institutions States *ill base their actions on their underl#in, material

interests and o*er. If States *ill al*a#s do *hat suits their interests then one can suose

that if in a articular situation liberalism seems more liel# to #ield ositi-e results then a

countr# ma# ,o that route.

Liberalism

This concet in contrast to realism considers differences bet*een democracies and non$

democracies as the fundamental cause of *ar. It belie-es that the national characteristics of

indi-idual States determine their international relations. nne$Darie Slau,hter 0+olfrum

2)11 *rites that ndre* Dora-csi de-eloed a ,eneral liberal theor# of IR basin, on the

assumtion that indi-idual States reresent dominant subsets of their domestic societies *ho

are the real ultimate actors in *orld olitics.

Liberalists su,,est that States collaborate instead of comete or en,a,e in armed conflict.

The# roose that democrac# and ,lobal trade reduce the benefits of interstate conflicts

therefore encoura,es lon,$term cooeration o-er short$term realist *ar ,ains. Liberalism

contends that states are *illin, to be bound b# obli,ations set uon them as a result of

international treaties and a,reements such that international or,anisations become rule$based

communities caable of re,ulatin, the beha-iour of states.

4


5/15

The United Nations

The United Nations 0UN *as founded on similar concets as e7ounded b# +oodro*

+ilson a former resident of the United States of merica 0US. The UN is not a sin,le

unit but a ,rou of institutes. Some are comletel# indeendent lie the International Labour


6/15

sa* it necessar#. The Securit# Council ,a-e Ira( time to coml# *ith its resolutions *hile

merica resented its case for the need of force. The merican resentations failed to

con-ince the Council.

The United States of America

r,uments ha-e been made on *hether the US has had realist or liberal tendencies under

Eeor,e "ush bet*een 2))) and 2))'. This aer *ill ar,ue that the US has al*a#s been

main, decisions basin, on *hat *ould be ,ood for it durin, this time$ be it suortin,

liberal notions or ro/ectin, realist roensities. In ,eneral the US has onl# follo*ed

international e7ectations *hen these are not at -ariance *ith the USBs national interests.

The United States held a ,reat economic olitical and militar# influence on the entire *orld

therefore *as an indisensable art of the UN.

Dahbubani in Reinner 02))! described the olitical s#stem of the United States as that of a

constitutional reublic and reresentati-e democrac# *here ma/orit# rule is temered b#

minorit# ri,hts rotected b# la*. 8e said the head of ,o-ernment could not tae forei,n

olic# decisions *ithout at least t*o third suort of the Senate. 6esite this the resident is

allo*ed to enter into treaties *ith forei,n nations throu,h e7ecuti-e a,reements *hich do not

re(uire the senateBs aro-al.

!


7/15

8innebusch 02))! cites mmanuel Tod 02))3 *ho ar,ues that the corrution of US

democrac# b# mone#ed secial interests ener-ated domestic checs on *ar. This *ould oint

to the fact that the olitical s#stem of the countr# ma# determine the forei,n olic# emlo#ed

b# a countr#. In this case it can be contented that the state is but a reresentation of o*erful

,rous *ithin the countr#.

The Bush years: Liberal or Realist?

6urin, the eriod 2))) to 2))' certain characteristics of the US could be interreted as

realist most notabl# its re/ection of transnationalism in the lead u to the *ar in Ira( and

subse(uent re$emti-e militar# conflict. This realist notion is suorted b# its use of torture

and its o-erall ambition for US suremac# throu,h the fortif#in, of resource$rich re,ions in

the *orld. In the same -ein as said b# Gohn Ienberr# the United States has been the ,reatest

chamion of multilateralism in the 2)thcentur# but it has also been reluctant to tie itself too

closel# to these multilateral institutes and rules 0Dearsheimer 2))1.

s Soh 02))4 noted the US had intent to function as the H*orld oliceB. This is contrar# to

transnationalism *here a ,lobal bod# indeendent of an# sin,le State is an arbiter of *orld

affairs. This ambi-alence to*ards international bodies maes it challen,in, to conclude *ith

certaint# *hether US follo*ed liberal or realist ractices.

&


8/15

USA-UN relations

In 2))) former Chairman of the US Senate orei,n Relations Committee Gesse 8elms said

in a seech to the UN Securit# Council that no international institution has the caacit# to

/ud,e the forei,n olic# and national securit# decisions of the United States 0Do*le

2))3. The United States *as -er# articular in selectin, ne* international commitments

*ith the United Nations 2))) to 2))'. In the *orst scenarios it rene,ed from ast

commitments *ith the UN.

In 2))2 resident "ush susended the si,nature of the US *ith the UN Secretar# Eeneral.

The "ush administration also romul,ated the ;De7ico Cit#? olic# also no*n as the

,lobal ,a, rule *hich rendered local or,ani@ations that en,a,ed in ri-atel# funded abortion$

related acti-ities consistent *ith their o*n countr#Bs la*s ineli,ible for U.S. suort for

contraceti-e ser-ices. The US *ithdre* assistance to the United Nations oulation und

0UN of about 34 million merican dollars on the ,rounds that UNBs suort of

-oluntar# contraceti-e ser-ices in China is someho* tantamount to suort of coerci-e

abortion 0"arot 2))'.

8e,emons lie the United States ad-ocate for international or,ani@ations lie the United

Nations to sread their ideals and -alues *ithout aearin, too a,,ressi-e. The realist focus

on relati-e o*er e7lains *h# the United States has acted unilaterall# at times. Some

realists comletel# disre,ard the imortance of international institutions and tal about the

o*er of the state alone. 8o*e-er it is the classical realist ar,ument of balance of o*er that

can e7lain the US suort for the UN. "# bein, art of a multilateral s#stem such as the UN

the US could re-ent counterbalancin, b# ro/ectin, a beni,n intent to*ards the *orld.

'


9/15

Realists ar,ue that US olic# maers ha-e demonstrated suort for international

institutions such as the UN to sho* their satisfaction *ith the status (uo and alla# other

countriesB securit# fears thus re-entin, the emer,ence of a counterbalancin, coalition.

Unilateralism and multilateralism are both tools to achie-in, forei,n olic# ob/ecti-es and a

he,emon can chose either deendin, on *hich one *ill suit its benefits best at the moment.

The United States of merica has the o*er resources and caabilit# to ursue its ,oals

althou,h it sometimes a,rees to a multilateral s#stem as *ell. The US ,o-ernment i,nored

international olitics and attaced Ira( in 2))3 *ithout the aro-al of UN Securit# Council.

This in-asion *as done urel# on merican terms thou,h on the rete7t of *eaons of mass

destruction. Dember states of the United Nations Securit# Council had not reached a ma/orit#

consensus on ho* to deal *ith the situation.


10/15

The ultimate o*er lies *ith the State and its decisions are al*a#s made to rotect o*n

so-erei,nt# and national interest. s a result states must essentiall# rel# on their o*n

resources and strate,ies to sur-i-e. or lar,e states self$interest does not al*a#s lie *ith

transnationalism.


11/15

There are ar,uments that merica considered its material interest or those of the rulin, elites

in merica to reach the decision to mae the in-asion 08innebusch 2))&a. Gonathan Nit@an

and Shimshon "ichler 02))4 ar,ue that the Ira( *ar ser-ed the needs of dominant caital

*hich suorts the notion ut for*ard b# 08innebusch 2))&a of merica actin, to satisf#

the aims of those reresented b# the rulin, cli(ue. These interests include oil Israel 0a

strate,ic all# to US and militar# sales.

Conclusion

8innebusch 02))&b ad-anced that mainstream theories of IR *ere inade(uate to full#

comrehend *h# the US had in-aded Ira(. +hile realists a,ree that there is anarch# in the

*orld and that o*erful nations see he,emon# this has failed to e7lain the actions of the

US in dealin, *ith Ira(. Stehen +alt a realist belie-ed that Ira( osed no securit# threat

to the US *hile Dearsheimer another realist belie-ed that ,lobal he,emon# is unattainable

therefore the attac b# the US on Ira( *as irrational 0Dearsheimer and +alt 2))3.

This ,oes a,ainst the realist assumtion that nations are rational actors. 8innebusch 02))&

further osits that the Ira( in-asion *as less about Ira( than about the ,lobal role of the US.

This of course is all (uite a chan,e from traditional US forei,n olic# that *as based on the

containment of threats and that -ie*ed he,emon# as bein, rooted in consent deri-ed from

multilateral consultation hence necessaril# limited b# international la* and institutions and

re(uirin, a riorit# for dilomac# o-er militar# force.

11


12/15

This aer has sho*n that neither realism nor liberalism full# catures the Ira( in-asion b#

the "ush administration. The distinction of *hether the attac *as based on realist or liberal

theories remains sub/ect to obser-er. It is interestin, that leadin, realists oosed the *ar.

The essa# has sho*n that US used its o*er to disre,ard the UNBs lac of resolution to

ad-ance its interests. To interret this as bein, suero*er actin, in a *orld mired *ith

anarch# for to re$emt attacs on it or as he,emon# seein, to sread democrac# remains a

contentious issue.

The UN suffered from its lac of o*er since it has no territor# or citi@ens of its o*n. Soh

02))4 surmised that the UN has to reform its charters *hich ha-e become obsolete and do

not relate to the resent e-ent. This *as e-idenced b# the disa,reements of the UN Securit#

Council ertainin, to rticle 42 for the use of force. The relationshi bet*een the US and

UN has been deendent on *hat the US *anted.

References

"arot S. 02))' "ac to "asics: The Rationale for Increased unds for International amil#

lannin, Euttmacher olic# Re-ie* Summer 2))' olume 11 Number 3

12


13/15

8allida# 6. 2)12 The United Nations and its Conduct during the Invasion and

Occupation of Iraq, Testimony to the World Tribunal on Iraq,

htt:JJ***.,lobalresearch.caJthe$united$nations$and$its$conduct$durin,$the$

in-asion$and$occuation$of$ira(J31)14 ccessed )2 Setember 2)14

8innebusch R. 02))! The Iraq War and International Relations Implications for !mall

!tates Cambrid,e Re-ie* of International ffairs olume 1A Number 3 Setember.

8innebusch R. 02))&a The merican In-asion


14/15

Dar/orie nn "ro*ne 02))3 The United Nations Securit# Council K Its Role in the Ira(

Crisis: "rief "e#ond Ira(: The Crisis of the Transatlantic Securit# Communit#> in

8eld 6. and 9oeni,$rchibu,i D. 0eds. +merican o-er in the &.st

Century Cambrid,e and Dalden: olit# ress 214$4).

Schneider rancis G. 01A!) ODan the State and +ar b# 9enneth N. +alt@OIndiana /a-

0ournal: ol. 35: Issue 2 rticle 12.-ailable at:

htt:JJ***.reositor#.la*.indiana.eduJil/J-ol35Jiss2J12

Shimshon "ichler P Gonathan Nit@an H6ominant caital and the ne* *arsB Gournal of

+orld$S#stems Research 1)02 0Summer 2))4 . 255K32&

Slau,hter nne$Darie 02)11 In +olfrum R. 0d.#a1 lanc2 $ncyclopedia of ublic

International /a-,


15/15

+alt@ 9.N. 1A5A Dan the State and +ar: Theoretical nal#sis. Columbia ress

Uni-ersit#

15

us-un relations: iraq occupation

Documents