POSITION PAPER 2

Deliberation Of the legality and consequences of George W. Bush’s Invasion Of Iraq

It is critical to acknowledge the complex historical context and range of motivations that shaped
the decision to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This decision stems from the Gulf War, in
which the United States and its allies—most notably the United Kingdom—led a swift
international military response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The subsequent ten years were
marked by ongoing tensions, harsh sanctions, and the Saddam Hussein government's repeated
violations of decisions made by the UN Security Council. This period highlighted the continuous
threat that Iraq's alleged WMDs and disdain for international law posed. The UK chose to join
the coalition in 2003 mainly due to its commitment to upholding international law and
maintaining global security aiming to promote stability in the area and destroy any risks that
Hussein's administration may pose.

A number of measures were taken by the United Nations and different legislative organizations
to address the mounting concerns regarding Saddam Hussein's rule in the years preceding the
2003 invasion of Iraq. Following the Gulf War, the UN Security Council adopted a number of
significant resolutions with the goal of limiting Iraq's military power and guaranteeing adherence
to international standards. The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was created to
oversee and confirm compliance with Resolution 687, which was issued in 1991 and called for
the removal of Iraq's WMD. Even with these attempts, Iraq consistently hindered and did not
completely cooperate with inspections, which kept many believing that WMDs were present.

The UN Security Council responded to Iraq's non-compliance by passing several resolutions,

such as Resolution 1441 in 2002, which gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to abide by its
disarmament obligations and avert dire repercussions. The International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission
(UNMOVIC) were required to conduct thorough inspections as a result of this decision.

The aftermath of the Gulf War and Iraq's subsequent ten years of non-compliance with UN
resolutions had a significant impact on the UK's posture. The British government, led by Prime
Minister Tony Blair, has never backed down from highlighting the threats posed by Iraq's
purported WMD and its violation of international law. In addition to his history of aggression
and violations of human rights, the UK contended that Saddam Hussein's continued possession
of WMDs posed a serious threat to international security and stability.

The United Kingdom's position was additionally shaped by a more extensive dedication to
advancing human rights and democratic government throughout the Middle East. In the end, the
British government thought that deposing Saddam Hussein would contribute to long-term
regional peace and security by ending an immediate threat and paving the way for a more
democratic and stable Iraq. The British government was unwavering in its conviction that swift
action was required to preserve international law, safeguard global security, and advance
humanitarian ideals, even in the face of opposition surrounding the country's choice to back the
invasion of Iraq.

Addressing the issues in Iraq as a representative of the United Kingdom calls for creative and
focused responses. Coordinated rehabilitation and humanitarian activities can be ensured by
bolstering international monitoring and support through a more robust UN mandate and
improved coalition building. Stability will be improved through regional security conversation
facilitation and integrated security training programs for Iraqi forces. Encouraging microfinance
programs, public-private partnerships, and assistance for small and medium-sized businesses can
boost the economy and generate jobs. Community resilience can be increased by putting targeted
humanitarian relief programs into action and moving toward long-term development.

Bibliography

1. Sahlane, A. (2012). Argumentation and Fallacy in the Justification of the 2003 War on

Iraq. Argumentation, 26(4), 459–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9265-8

2. Saidin, M. I. S. (2022). US foreign policy, neo-conservatism and the Iraq war

(2003-2011): Critical reviews of factors and rationales. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 9(1).

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2022.2111829

3. Knox, R. (2021). International law, politics and opposition to the Iraq War. London

Review of International Law, 9(2), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1093/lril/lrab014

4. International Review of the Red Cross. (2023, December 1). International Review of the

Red Cross. https://international-review.icrc.org/