Twenty years ago, on March 20, 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom violated all international rules and attacked Iraq. They illegally invaded this country, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, destroyed infrastructure and plunged an entire region into chaos and bloodshed. The result was, among other things, the birth of the terrorist group Daesh. Even today, Iraq remains a dangerous country, and those who venture into Baghdad do so at their own risk.
Why talk about Iraq when all eyes are on Ukraine? Because the war against Iraq is the original crime, the one that tainted international life and legitimized a deadly doctrine: unilateral intervention. This war partly explains the one waged against Ukraine by Russia. By their action, the Americans and the British sent an unequivocal message to the world: when you are powerful, you are untouchable, and when you are untouchable, you can do whatever you want without fear of reprisal.
It is worth recalling here the specific context that led to the invasion of Iraq. In the aftermath of the first Gulf War of 1990-1991 where Iraqi troops were expelled from Kuwait by a US-led coalition authorized by the Security Council, the UN imposed a series of sanctions on Baghdad, including the obligation to destroy all weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi regime played cat and mouse with the inspectors for a decade.
September 11, 2001 arrived. Faced with this tragedy, the United States suspected Iraq of being in cahoots with terrorists and of still hiding prohibited weapons. They took the matter to the Security Council in the fall of 2002, and a resolution requiring Baghdad to submit to further inspections was passed.
Resolution 1441 was binding on both the Iraqi regime and the members of the Council. Two essential elements in this resolution were to be remembered: first, it was the inspectors who determined whether or not Iraq complied with its disarmament obligations; second, the fifteen members of the Council remained seized of the matter and decided on the measures to be taken in the event of a violation.
Americans and British having already decided to go to war, they took particular care to discredit the inspection process by publishing false information on weapons of mass destruction while engaging in a campaign of strong pressure to convince the non-permanent members of the Council to join their camp. The inspectors held firm and confirmed that they found nothing, and the majority of the Council joined the disarmament camp by peaceful means.
The American-British maneuver having failed, London and Washington went illegal and started the war, supported by the countries of Eastern Europe, those who today condemn the illegal invasion of Europe. ‘Ukraine.
Regardless of one’s opinion of the regime in place in Iraq, the war violated all international rules. By freeing themselves from the law, the two Anglo-Saxon powers legitimized unilateral intervention, a gesture that could not go unnoticed within the international community. From then on, what prevented Russia from seizing territory in Georgia and Ukraine, or China from doing the same in the South China Sea?
The war against Iraq has left its mark, particularly in the countries of the global south. Too often, some of them have been the victims of the imperialist aims of the great powers. Today, these countries have acquired an autonomy of choice and decision-making which they value more than anything. She who now allows them to be in a better position to negotiate their relations with these powers. Consequently, they consider the conflict in Ukraine as a European war and refuse to let themselves be dragged into it under cover of the necessary respect for international law.
If we consider that the war against Iraq was a crime, then we must go to the end of the logic induced by such a violation of international rules: the sanction. For several weeks, many have rightly been asking that Russian leaders be brought before a court to answer for their crimes in Ukraine, including that of aggression. What prevents them from demanding an extension of the mandate to crimes committed in Iraq? Or create an independent body to do it? These crimes are imprescriptible and should also lead to the arrest of the culprits and their trial.
The world being what it is, that won’t happen. It is even said that the United States, the United Kingdom and France would not be in favor of inserting the crime of aggression into the mandate of a tribunal to try Russian abuses in Ukraine. And for good reason. Westerners have long since found the means to clear themselves of their crimes by tinkering with legal quibbles and deploying their economic and military forces to intimidate those who would have the bad idea to remember that no State is above laws.