Issues: Iraq

September 20, 2002

On Sept. 12, President Bush spoke to the UN General Assembly on the twin threats of Iraq and terrorism. His speech was pointedly preceded by an address to the General Assembly by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who had sent a copy of his remarks to the White House on Sept. 11.

It was immediately apparent that both men were speaking to audiences beyond the General Assembly. Bush's calls for regime change in Iraq had been criticized, sometimes very harshly, by numerous European leaders, by members of Congress from both parties, and by people across the U.S. Opinion polls showed sizeable blocs, including some majorities, of "the street" in European countries and in the U.S. opposed to military action, especially unilateral action. And the President faced solid opposition in the Arab World, whose leaders feared that unilateral U.S. military intervention to topple Saddam Hussein would dangerously exacerbate the chronic instability of the entire Middle East.

Secretary-General Annan's other audiences were the U.S. Administration and Congress, for he explicitly linked the primacy of the traditional rule of law within nations to a new, higher standard: the rule of law among nations -- that is, international law.

Bush and Annan's comments also were directed toward two common audiences. The first was Iraq, warned by both to obey UN resolutions or face consequences. The second was the Security Council, on whose shoulders lies the responsibility to pass and to enforce resolutions affecting peace and security.

Since Sept. 12, many governments have hedged their earlier opposition to action by the United States in the event Iraq fails to comply with a new UN resolution under discussion. All such changes, however, are predicated on two crucial points: that military invasion will not be the first option, and that whatever action is authorized by a new resolution will be multilateral. The Administration is pushing for UN action within four weeks.

Speech Comparison

On September 11, 2001:

Annan: "The terrorist attacks of that day ... requires a broad, sustained and global response [that] can only succeed if we make full use of multilateral institutions."

Bush: "We've accomplished much in the last year [since September 11, 2001] -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond."

On international law:

Annan: "Every government that is committed to the rule of law at home, must be committed also to the rule of law abroad. And all States have a clear interest, as well as clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order."

Bush: "We created the United Nations Security Council so that our resolutions would be more than wishes....[W]e dedicated ourselves...to a system of security defended by all."

On international security:

Annan: "International security is not a zero-sum game. The more peace, security and freedom any one State has, the more its neighbors are likely to have."

Bush: "Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts .... Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes."

On collective response to security challenges:

Annan: "[The UN founders] recognized that, by agreeing to exercise sovereignty together, they could gain a hold over problems that would defeat any one of them acting alone....Even the most powerful countries know that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims."

Bush: "In one place -- in one regime -- we find...the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront....Twelve years ago, [Iraq's] aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations."

On international trust:

Annan: "The more a country makes use of multilateral institutions, the more others will trust and respect it, and the stronger its chances to exercise true leadership."

Bush: No reference

On international legitimacy when using force:

Annan: "Any State, if attacked, retains the inherent right of self-defence....But beyond that, when States decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations."

Bush: No reference

On the role of the Security Council:

Annan: The existence of an effective international security systems depends...on the Council having the political will to act....The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council's agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace."

Bush: No reference

On current threats to world peace and actions to remove the threats:

Annan:

• Israel-Palestine: adhere to Resolutions 242, 338, 1397.
• Iraq: accept UN weapons inspectors as the "indispensable first step....If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities."
• Afghanistan: help "to extend [government] authority throughout the country... [and aid] donors must follow through on their commitments."
• South Asia: "Given two countries with nuclear capability. . .the underlying cause [of their dispute] must be addressed."

Bush:

• Israel-Palestine: "In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides."
• Iraq: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat ... to peace .... If the Iraqi regime wants peace, it will ... remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material ... end all support for terrorism ... cease persecution of its civilian population ... release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown ... [and] end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program."

On international versus national interests:

Annan : "Let us all recognise, from now on ... that the global interest is our national interest."

Bush : "We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind....[T]he United States of America will make that stand. And ... the United Nations ... [has] the power to make that stand, as well."

On imminence of the Iraqi threat:

Annan: No reference

Bush: "Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger" and its conduct "a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace."

On regime change in Iraq:

Annan: No reference

Bush: "Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it."

On action in case of continued Iraqi defiance:

Annan: "If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities."

Bush: "If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account....Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power."

Analysis

As illustrated, the two speeches paralleled each other on the first four main points. Notably, each referred to the rule of law, Annan explicitly, Bush by calling for a security system that is more than "wishes." Both men also spoke about international or common security as a principle to be upheld. Brandishing his "multilateral credentials" in this section, Bush also announced that the U.S. will rejoin UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).

Annan detailed three other major threats, but Bush mentioned only the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and seemed to do so almost as an afterthought (perhaps prompted by his advanced look at Annan's text). The President devoted only four sentences to Israel-Palestine compared to ten in Annan's shorter talk.

From this point on, the two speeches diverged sharply in tone even when they addressed the same themes. For example, while Bush minutely detailed Iraqi non-compliance with previous UN resolutions, Annan's remarks were geared more to what Iraq must do to come into compliance. Similarly, with regard to the obligations of the UN in dealing with Iraq, the Secretary-General's theme was the need for collective action under the aegis of the Security Council. And, although not speaking directly to the probability that military action would result should Iraqi defiance on UN resolutions continue, he cautioned the Security Council that it would have to "face its responsibilities" should Iraq not fully cooperate.

Annan referred to the plight of the Iraqi people under sanctions, tying the eventual lifting of sanctions to Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions on the return of inspectors and the elimination of Iraq's WMD. Bush, in his speech, shifted the argument from relieving the impact of sanctions to "liberty" for the Iraqi people. He declared its realization a moral cause, a strategic goal, deserved by Iraqis, and necessary for world peace.

Deserved it might be, and morally desirable, but who will define the extent of this new liberty, who will defend it? If it is, as President Bush asserted, a strategic goal (presumably of the United States), his statement conflates morality with U.S. self-interest, a highly questionable proposition.

Given the dictatorial regime in Iraq today (despite the trappings of representative government), "liberty" cannot be reached without changing the governing elite -- that is, regime change. President Bush made this point quite explicitly when, after declaring (but offering no new proof) that Saddam Hussein is "a grave and gathering danger," he declared that Security Council resolutions will be enforced, presumably by a UN empowered coalition, or action will be taken, presumably by the United States, to deprive the regime of power [emphases added].

In the end, the difference comes down to this. President Bush invites the UN to accept the U.S. national case against Saddam Hussein and to join the United States in "acting" to ensure international security by compelling Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolutions. If not, the current regime will "lose power" which, given the regime's hold on the levers of power, means military action. Secretary-General Annan, while insisting that the Security Council must become involved whenever there is "a grave danger to world peace," turns the Bush argument on its head by affirming a fundamental multilateral principle: that every nation must have regard for the global interest first as it formulates policy in its national interest. For in today's interdependent world, any other course is counter-productive.

Reviewed: 09/06/2005

More on Iraq