Article for The Independent

In his Sedgefield speech, Tony Blair justified his support for a rush to war in Iraq in familiar terms.  He finished his speech with an argument that he has not previously put forward.  He said “It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe .. … This may be the law, but should it be?”

Much of the press comment on the speech focused on this point but, as so often these days, our political journalists are informed only by the No 10 briefing and look no further.  Neither they nor the Prime Minister seemed to be aware that, at Kofi Annan’s request, a prestigious international commission has made detailed proposals to enable the international community to take action against oppressive dictators. 

The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty was established by the Government of Canada in response to a request from the Secretary General, Kofi Annan, in his report to the United Nations General Assembly in 2000.  He challenged the international community to try to forge consensus on the so-called “right of humanitarian intervention” which has been one of the most controversial foreign policy issues of the last decade – both when intervention has happened, as in Kosovo,  and when it has failed, as in Rwanda.

The Commission was asked to consider when, if ever, it is appropriate for states to take coercive – and in particular military – action against another state for the purpose of protecting people at risk in that other state.  The Commission was asked to consult across the world and consider the moral, political and operational questions and to bring back a report which would help the Secretary General and everyone else find new common ground.

The report is very impressive.  Its central theme is “The Responsibility to Protect”, the idea that the concept of sovereignty includes a responsibility to protect citizens from avoidable catastrophe and that when governments are unwilling or unable to do so, the responsibility must be borne by the international community.

The report makes clear that the Responsibility to Protect means a responsibility to prevent and react and that all means short of military action must be exhausted before military action is taken.  It also insists that the interests of the people in need of protection must be the only justification for such action. It lays down strict principles for military intervention based on just war principles – that there must be just cause, the primary purpose must be to halt human suffering, and it must be a last resort, proportional and have a reasonable chance of success.

The report makes clear UN authorisation for military action would be needed, but suggests that veto wielding powers be asked to declare that they will not veto in such cases unless their own interest is at stake.  The report also suggests that the Secretary General should have a power to propose such action to the General Assembly.  The recommendations are made on how the General Assembly Security Council and Secretary General might take these proposals forward.

Sadly, the report was published in December 2001 and thus overshadowed by the events of September 11th.  It has therefore hardly come to public attention and has not been taken forward given the weakening of a commitment to unified action and diminution of the authority of the UN brought about by the war in Iraq.

Our Prime Minister could have fulfilled his commitment to take action on Iraq through the UN, and secured his legacy if he had invoked “The Duty to Protect” as the way to approach Iraq.  The principle would not have been used to justify the military action that was taken because we had not reached “last resort” and the requirement of “Right Intention – the primary purpose of the intervention …. must be to halt or avert human suffering” was not fulfilled.  But the Duty to Protect provides a framework for military action to be authorised by the UN if all other means fail.  Of course, such consideration did not come into play because a date had been fixed for military action and the US was not willing to pause even for a few months to allow Dr Blix to complete his work and keep the international community united.  But it is important that no one is misled into justifying this rush to war by suggesting that there was no framework of developing international law that would enable action to be taken to protect the interests of the people of Iraq.

The action taken in Iraq would also have failed the test of the conditions laid down under “The Duty to Protect” because there is also “A Responsibility to Rebuild”.  The report suggests that this should be governed by an adaptation of Chapter XII of the UN Charter and in particular Article 76 which notes “that the aim of the system is to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the people of the territory in question …” Sadly, no such principled thinking governed the planning for post war reconstruction.  Such preparations were made by the UN and there was an international willingness to unite to support the reconstruction of Iraq under a UN mandate but the Pentagon pushed all of this aside and in its determination to control post war Iraq is responsible for the disorder and continued suffering that afflicts its long suffering people.

Clare Short, MP for Birmingham Ladywood and Joel Krieger , Norma Wilentz Hess Professor of Political Science, Wellesley College, Massachusetts (joint author with David Coates of “Blair’s War “ published this month by Polity Press”