RECENT SPATE OF SUICIDE BOMBINGS THREATEN TO PUSH IRAQ OVER THE PRECIPICE

The recent spate of suicide bomb attacks in Iraq has not only stoked tensions in a country criss-crossed by several fault lines but also threatens the overall stability of the already fractured Middle East region. The latest attack occurred in the Southern city of Basra this weekend which killed scores and wounded many. Initial reports indicated that 15 people had lost their lives in the attack; however, the figure has now risen to about 53 at the time of writing while around 100 are said to have been injured.


Latest Attacks

The attacker was said to have been in possession of a fake police ID and was wearing an Iraqi police uniform. Initial reports allege that the perpetrator approached a police checkpoint and appeared to hand out “sweets” to Shia Muslims making their way to a Mosque to celebrate the Shi’ite holy festival of Arbain. The suicide bomber then blew himself up in a crowd comprising mostly of police officers and Shi’ite pilgrims upon being approached by a police officer. The latest attacks add to the worrying spate of terror being unleashed against Shia Muslims in the cities of Baghdad and Nasariya which left 72 dead last week.


Operation Iraqi Freedom

The recent attacks lay bare sectarian divisions which exist in the post-Saddam Iraq only months after President Barack Obama fulfilled his campaign pledge of withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq. President Obama’s decision has met fierce criticism in some quarters as many doubt that the Iraqi state security apparatus has the capacity to contain threats posed by militants to internal security. Unfortunately, Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Bush administration-led military mission aimed at dislodging Saddam has thus far failed to yield the various promises made at its onset on 19th March 2003. In contrast the human and financial cost, as well as other as yet unquantifiable costs of the 9-year long operation appears to outweigh any benefits which even the most ardent protagonists of the Iraq war can claim the country has gained following the invasion. Harrowingly, the Lancet Journal reported in 2006 that a total of 654,965 people had lost their lives following the invasion. Figures from the US Department of Defence reveal that the U.S lost about 4,487 military personnel in Iraq since 2003. In addition, the financial costs of the war have been estimated by the US Congressional Research Service (CRS) as amounting to $801.9 billion. The “catastrophic success”, the belated term coined by George W. Bush in 2004 to describe the operation to overthrow Saddam appears now to be an overstatement when the financial and human costs of the incursion are taken into account.


Political Impasse

The country’s make-shift coalition has also been paralysed by political impasse. The stability of the power-sharing government has been threatened by allegations of favouritism, marginalisation and distrust. Tensions have been particularly fraught since an arrest warrant was issued against Iraq’s most senior Sunni Arab politician, Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi over claims that he funded attacks on the Iraqi government and security forces. The allegations are also said to have been substantiated by individuals employed as Mr Hashemi’s bodyguards at the time. Mr Hashemi remains a fugitive in the Iraq Kurdistan region of the country and remains under the protection of the Kurdish regional government who have refused to give him up despite calls from Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. The dispute has led to the boycott of the assembly by the al-Iraqiyya group, who are the main Sunni bloc in parliament. The group claims that the arrest warrant is merely a witch-hunt by the Shia-dominated government against the Sunni Muslim minority.


The Future

It would not be erroneous to assert that these divisions were less apparent in the ‘old Iraq’ ruled by the iron fist of Saddam Hussein. Aside the tit for tat attack by Sunnis against Shi’ite Muslims and vice versa, calls for autonomy voiced by the Kurdish area of the country and attacks against minority Christians, many of whom have left the country as a result, the country’s stability is complicated by the politics of the volatile Middle East region it finds itself in. Turkey’s attempts at asserting influence over the region, the Sunni Muslim rebellion in neighbouring Syria, the Shia majority ruled Iran’s relationship with Iraq’s Shi’ite leaders and mistrust of Sunni ruled Saudi Arabia are only but a few curve balls which the government has had to confront.

The autocratic demeanour exhibited by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has played a central role in the impossible current state of affairs. The stability of the country depends on his ability to compromise with the different factions making up the power-sharing government. Any positive changes to the current state of impasse will depend on this ability; after all, this is supposed to be a ‘power-sharing’ government. Moreover, the country’s leaders need to set an example to its populace by airing out difficulties via the arena provided by the negotiating table rather than through the issuance of arrest warrants or threats issued through the media. Only then will the message seep through to the country’s people that communication rather than violence is the most effective means of settling disputes.

In addition, the country’s security apparatus needs to be significantly strengthened to protect its people from the havoc wreaked by suicide bombers. To this end, there needs to be a change of focus towards pre-emptive action by the Iraqi government and this can be achieved by enhancing its intelligence services. Perhaps, it could seek the assistance of the US in this regard although a request of this nature may compromise its relationship with Iran who are alleged to have twisted Iraq’s arms into ensuring the exit of US combat troops from the country. Importantly, it is vital for the country’s people to see tangible benefits of living in the post-Saddam Iraq. The post-Saddam Iraq is still as poor as the Saddam ruled Iraq, and to compound matters, is also less secure. The next few months are critical times for the country although its future unfortunately rests in the hands of its pugnacious leader, Nouri al-Maliki. 1worldinternational urges its readers to watch this space.

PART 1:- HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: AN EVALUATION OF THE CASE FOR THE FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF REPRESSIVE REGIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

While the notion of ‘humanitarian intervention’ was not explicitly recognised and addressed by the United Nations Charter, some have argued that the concept of international peace and security appears to have acquired meaning beyond traditional collective security, to one in which ethnic cleansing, genocide, breaches of human rights, as well as grave breaches of humanitarian law, including those encompassed within a state's own borders are considered parts of the security fabric.

This article therefore intends to examine in some detail whether contemporary international law imposes a duty on states to intervene in a third state such as Syria where mass crimes including crimes against humanity or war crimes et al are being perpetrated, although within the confines of the United Nations legal regime. The article will address this matter over two parts with the concluding part published next week.

..................................................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION

The UN General Assembly on the legality of intervention once recognised that: "No state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly in the internal or external affairs of any other states...all forms of interference or threats against the personality of the state or against its political, economic or cultural elements are in violation of international law”. It is said that signatories to the UN Charter have delegated their right to unilateral enforcement to the UN, save on the grounds of self-defence where states are allowed to respond to the attack in the circumstances. The Security Council is thus endowed with the responsibility of undertaking executive action in order to prevent, punish a threat to or breach of the peace or act of aggression. The difficulty in ascertaining when an armed conflict constitutes or potentially constitutes a 'threat to peace and security' within the meaning of the Charter is readily apparent in many episodes that have confronted the international community since the adoption of the Charter. In the context of humanitarian intervention, the United States relied on this argument on numerous occasions over the years, most notably in Grenada and Panama. Although some identify a gradual evolution of customary international law permitting intervention by states in the event of humanitarian catastrophe, the Charter's text will undoubtedly be compromised in that event. Against this background, while the removal of, for example, the Syrian regime might be noble and ethical its legality will however be uncertain.


THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER ON THE USE OF FORCE

Article 51 of the UN Charter which confers on individual states an 'inherent right of individual or collective self-defence' and Security Council authorised enforcement actions under Chapter VII constitute the only exceptions to Article 2(4) which prohibits 'the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations'. The Security Council is accorded primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and pursuant to Article 34 may investigate any dispute which might endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. Under Chapter VII, the Council may take any action including the use of armed force 'as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security'. A determination of a threat to peace or breach of the peace made by the Security Council in response to the situations in for example, Syria or Sudan, will serve as a legitimate trigger for Chapter VII enforcement action circumventing the domestic jurisdiction clause of Article 2(7). Nevertheless, a more fundamental difficulty however will be establishing the existence of elements such as humanitarian crises or a disruption to democracy in Syria which have served as a precursor to intervention in the past, most notably in Somalia and Haiti.


THE CONCEPT OF ‘HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION’

i. Humanitarian intervention brought about by human rights abuses

It is increasingly being accepted that the concept of international peace and security appears to have acquired meaning beyond traditional collective security (envisaged as collective response to armed attack), to one in which ethnic cleansing, genocide and other gross violations of human rights, as well as grave breaches of humanitarian law, including those encompassed within a state's own borders are considered parts of the security fabric. Humanitarian intervention was recognised in the Council's resolution which expressed demand for urgent response by the international community, determining that the magnitude of the humanitarian crises in Rwanda constituted a threat to international peace and security in the region. The Council authorised 'operations aimed at protecting displaced persons, refugees and civilians at risk, using 'all necessary means to achieve these humanitarian objectives'. Humanitarianism was reiterated in the text of Security Council resolution 688(1991) which expressed grave concern over 'the repression of Iraqi citizens leading to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross border incursions, which threaten international peace in the region', demanding Iraq to end the repression immediately. If the line of authority espoused in Iraq and Rwanda is to be followed, the displacement of a large amount of the population, who have fled Syria following the political crisis in the country, certainly presents an international crisis and consequently constitutes a 'breach of peace' which falls within the ambit of Article 39, thus requiring enforcement.


TO BE CONTINUED