Law in disorder

Many international commentators have welcomed the closer involvement of the UN Security Council in the Iraq crisis and Baghdad's acceptance of UN weapon inspectors. Critics of America's policy on Iraq see the UN's involvement as a positive step away from war.


They argue that UN engagement creates a 'breathing space' for a negotiated solution, and that the UN's influence will ensure that US unilateralism is constrained by international law, as only the UN Security Council can sanction military aggression.


But both these claims are wrong: UN involvement neither makes war less likely nor does it make an attack on Iraq any more 'legitimate'.


Far from providing a breathing space, the preparations for any regime of weapons inspections guarantee months of high-profile wrangling over alleged Iraqi obstruction, while the USA continues to assemble its military forces.


According to military analysts, even without a breathing space an extensive assault on Iraq would not be feasible until later in the year - and possibly not until spring 2003. It seems unlikely that the Iraqi government will be able to buy breathing space beyond this point, whatever steps it takes. After all, the White House has already declared that the acceptance of weapons inspectors is not the issue and that Baghdad's offer is 'too little too late'.


More importantly, UN engagement encourages war because it is seen to give military action international legitimacy. Opinion polls in the USA and Britain seem to suggest that public support for military action is increasing, with many arguing that the prospect of UN support will build further public backing for a military campaign. The UN's involvement makes it easier for governments to commit to military action, encouraging the likelihood that there will be war rather than a negotiated solution. It also enables the USA to put more pressure on governments that are currently reluctant to support US action.