Disarmament Documentation

Back to Disarmament Documentation

'The War Was Not Inevitable', Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Igor Ivanov, January 19

Article of Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Igor Ivanov, Published in the 2003 Diplomatic Yearbook of the Russian MFA Diplomatic Academy "The Iraq Crisis and the Struggle for a New World Pattern", January 19, 2004.

2003 will go down in the history of international relations under the banner of the Iraq crisis.

In spite of regional proportions, this crisis has had a profound impact on the political climate in the world. The reason for this lies not only in the character of the Iraq issue itself. The global dimension of this crisis is determined by the fact that it has more acutely than ever since the end of the Cold War raised before all states the question of the choice of a development road for international relations in the 21st century. The schemes for resolving the Iraq crisis that had been suggested by different countries became a touchstone for tackling such key problems in present-day world politics as the future of the United Nations and international law and the legitimacy of the use of force. The diplomatic struggle around Iraq was in essence a struggle for the fundamental principles of safeguarding security and stability in the world, a struggle for a future world order.

This was what guided Russian diplomacy as it actively participated at every stage of the Iraq crisis in efforts for its political resolution, primarily within the framework of the United Nations Security Council. We today too continue to act based on our firm belief that finding a political solution to the Iraq problem means to take a step forward not only towards improving the situation in one of the most unstable regions of the world, but also towards the formation of a secure, fair and democratic world pattern.

Regime Change or the Fight Against Terrorism?

On September 11, 2001, the world was shocked by the terrorist acts that carried off thousands of human lives in New York and Washington. The threat of international terrorism, of which Russia had long been warning, now stood revealed to the world community in all its monstrous proportions.

As is known, our country was among the first to demonstrate solidarity with the United States of America over the 11/9 tragedy and to cooperate most extensively with it in the launching of a global antiterrorist struggle. In our choice we acted based on the interests of Russia's security and that of our allies and partners in the CIS and of international stability as a whole. We were aware that a victory over terrorism could only be won by a uniting of efforts of all the states. Russian-US cooperation became a key factor in the establishment of a global antiterrorist coalition. The world community's rallying in the face of a common threat not only ensured the coordination of actions to eliminate the criminal Taliban movement and the terrorist infrastructure of Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, but made it possible in a very short period of time to embark on the creation of multilateral mechanisms for combating terrorism on the basis of the UN, the G8 and other international and regional structures. Moreover, a definite hope appeared through cooperation in the fight against terrorism to form a long-term strategy for countering other global challenges and threats as well.

The chance that then appeared, however, was not used in full measure as a consequence of the development of the Iraq crisis. The decision by the US administration to shift the emphasis from implementing the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq to the preparations for overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein - whether the US had wanted it or not - had thrown the unity of the global antiterrorist coalition into jeopardy, because it meant an actual review of the fundamental principles on which it had been created.

The attitude of the international community towards the antiterrorist operation in Afghanistan and towards the policy the US chose against Iraq are testimony to this.

In the former case the threat emanating from the territory of Afghanistan was absolutely real and obvious. Therefore the use of force was unanimously backed by the world community and had the legitimate sanction of the United Nations. As to Iraq, there was in this case the real alternative of a political settlement of the conflict based on broad international support. It is indicative that even authoritative political figures of the US, in particular, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, were compelled to admit that the US had taken military action against Iraq in the absence of a direct threat from that state.

The military operation in Afghanistan had a clear-cut aim shared by all: to liquidate the terrorist network of Al-Qaida along with its backer, the Taliban regime. Not so with Iraq. Indeed, no compelling evidence had been presented to the world community to bear out the charges against the Iraqi regime of support for international terrorism and involvement in the events of September 11, 2001. Nor have any clear proofs been discovered up to this day of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It was by no chance that under these conditions Washington and London in justification of their policy for a military solution began to bring questions to the fore that had no direct bearing on the UN Security Council's resolutions on Iraq. The activities were questioned of the international inspectors, for whose return to Iraq the UN Security Council had been pressing in all the previous few years with the active role of the US and Britain. Then followed the statements that it was no longer a question of Iraq's disarmament, but of a change of regime in that country. And, finally, the argument was put forward, by which a war against Iraq was supposedly needed to start a process of democratic change throughout the Islamic world. Such motives, of course, could not have been recognized as legitimate by the world community and could not have received the approval of the UN Security Council.

One more basically important difference is that in Afghanistan immediately after the end of active combat operations there was launched under UN auspices the process of a postwar state and political reconstruction of the country. In other words, the world community had formulated a clear-cut plan of a postwar political settlement in the country, which, as shown by the world experience of the last decade, is the most complex and laborious part of peacekeeping operations. In Iraq the United States and Britain, acting as the occupation forces, assumed the full responsibility for a subsequent resolution of the situation in the country.

Under these conditions the Iraq crisis could not fail to become a serious test for the United Nations system, as for international relations as a whole.

The War Was Not Inevitable

In a bid to preserve the unity of the world community, Russia jointly with France, China, Germany and other member states of the Security Council sought to channel the developments in the situation around Iraq towards a political settlement on the basis of international law and the decisions of the United Nations. Russia's stand had from the very beginning of the conflict been open, honest and consistent. We did not oppose the United States, but a military solution of the Iraq problem, which we considered a mistake and told the American partners so.

At the base of our position lay our deep conviction that the possibilities for concerted action by the world community with regard to Iraq were quite real. One of them was a general acknowledgement of the need to answer the main question whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not. Corresponding to this aim was resolution 1441 unanimously adopted by the Security Council, on whose basis the international inspectors resumed their activities in Iraq. Russia, like other countries, had done a great deal to get Baghdad to give an absolute consent to the inspectors' return. Thanks to the unity of the international community and joint pressure on the Iraqi authorities Iraq accepted practically all the demands of the inspectors and did not put up any serious obstacles to their activity. They were given unconditional and unlimited access to any sites in Iraq.

In the four and a half months of their work in Iraq the inspectors from UNMOVIC (the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) and IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) achieved tangible progress. Their activities were repeatedly discussed within the framework of the UN Security Council. Within a short period of time four meetings of the Council were held at Foreign Ministers' level, a case unprecedented in the history of diplomacy. With each such discussion it was becoming ever more obvious that the inspectors had everything necessary to successfully accomplish their mission - to finish the process of the disarmament of Iraq by peaceful means.

Extremely important in this regard was the meeting of the UN Security Council convened on Russia's initiative on March 19, 2003, at Foreign Ministers' level. The reports submitted at it by the heads of UNMOVIC and IAEA, which contained a list of specific questions requiring clarification, proved convincingly the effectiveness of the operating mechanism of inspections.

Unfortunately, this work was not carried through - and not by the will of the Security Council of the United Nations. But even the results that were achieved are enough to responsibly assert that no legal grounds existed for the use of force against Iraq. By the moment of the start of war Iraq presented no direct threat to the security of either the United States or any other nation.

That is why there can be no agreeing with the political observers who regarded the lack of unity in the UN Security Council on Iraq as evidence of the inefficiency of the Council and the United Nations as a whole. The UN had everything necessary to solve the task set for it by the international community - by peaceful means to disarm the regime in Baghdad. At the same time the UN Security Council quite correctly refused to support what was obviously an illegitimate action - a forcible liquidation of the regime in Iraq. A different decision would have led to a crisis and the discrediting of the worldwide international organization.

How to "Win Peace" in Iraq

The attitude of Russia to the military action launched by the US and its allies against Iraq on March 20, 2003, is well known and we have no reason to change our assessments. At the same time our differences with the US on that score are already history. Today it is important jointly to search for a way out of the Iraq crisis, the continuation of which - and this is obvious to all - meets no one's interests.

From the military point of view, the outcome of combat actions in Iraq was quite predictable. However, to win the war has turned to be considerably easier than to "win peace." As Russian President Vladimir Putin has stressed, Russia never associated itself with the regime of Saddam Hussein and does not regret that it has ceased to exist. But the price that had to be paid for its removal has turned out to be excessively high. The results of the war in Iraq compel one to recall the words of Mahatma Gandhi that if as a result of violence something good may turn out then it is short-lived at best; whereas the harm done by violence, on the contrary, will stay for long.

The realities of the postwar situation in Iraq are the destruction of national statehood and the resulting legal vacuum, along with the rampage of violence and crime. All this not only creates a breeding ground for extremism and terrorism, but also threatens a division of the country along ethnoconfessional lines. The territory of Iraq has become a center of attraction for members of terrorist groups from the entire Near and Middle East.

Is it possible in these conditions to talk of some positive influence of the situation in Iraq on the processes of democratization on the scale of the entire Middle East which, as is known, was one of the chief ideological motives for war in Iraq? Rather, on the contrary, there is reason to fear a merging of the internal crisis in that country with other seats of instability in the region, primarily with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In this connection one of the lessons of the Iraq crisis is the confirmation of the truth long verified by life that a democratic system cannot be imposed, and even less so ingrained solely by the use of force, without consideration for the national specifics and ethnoconfessional peculiarities of a country. A strong democracy can arise only on its own national ground. It can be aided from the outside only by providing favorable external conditions for the evolution of democratic processes and by giving them necessary political, economic and social support.

The aggravation of the situation of chaos and violence in Iraq requires the immediate launching of a similar plan of political settlement to the one that the world community has managed to realize in Afghanistan.

That plan should open before the Iraqi people a clear-cut prospect of the restoration of the sovereignty of the country. Only on this condition will there appear the possibility to realistically take up the solution of the questions of security and economic reconstruction. For it is obvious that to fight terrorism effectively in Iraq will only be possible when the Iraqis will take up this matter themselves.

A second important condition of political settlement is the elaboration of a clear-cut mandate for an international security force in Iraq. Realistically assessing the present situation, Russia does not demand an immediate withdrawal of the coalition forces from Iraq and the liquidation of the provisional US authority. In Iraq today there are simply no state structures which could at once assume responsibility for the ensuring of security. At the same time it is of fundamental importance that the Iraqi people should change their attitude to the foreign military presence in the country, which up to now has only been regarded by them as the occupation. That is why Russia advocates that the UN Security Council's mandate should clearly define the tasks of the international force and the specific timeframe for its stationing in Iraq.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed in a New York Times interview, "to effectively solve the problem of Iraq is possible only by enlisting the Iraqis themselves. It is necessary to solve this task with their participation and with their hands. But for this to be effective they should first believe in our serious intentions, in our desire to restore the sovereignty of Iraq. That is why we consider that the UN role should be enhanced."

Toward a New World Pattern

The Iraq crisis also demands drawing broader conclusions regarding the further outlook for the development of world affairs. It is a question of the necessity to put an end to the protracted transitional period in international relations and to start building a model of world order which would provide conditions for the sustained development of all the states and regions in a global and increasingly interdependent world in the 21st century.

The Iraq crisis has forcefully laid bare the contradictions of the present stage of international relations, whose chief features are uncertainty and chronic instability. One can hardly name another period in contemporary history when there would simultaneously have been so many unresolved regional problems in the world really threatening international security. It is abundantly clear that these problems cannot be solved only by responding to the crises that arise. There is a need for the formation of a system of international relations which would make it possible not only to meet the existing challenges effectively, but also to prevent the appearance of new ones.

The chief requirement to a new world pattern is that over and above anything else, it should be secure; that is, provide conditions in which each state would perform the appropriate obligations to the world community, and the latter, in its turn, would protect the lawful interests of each of its members.

In this connection the problem of the legitimacy of the use of force in international relations is acquiring particular importance. Opening the 58th session of the United Nations General Assembly, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan correctly drew attention to the fact that the logic of the use of force in a preemptive, unilateral manner or within the framework of coalitions set up for those purposes, without the sanction of the UN Security Council, "represents a fundamental challenge to the principles, on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years."

Russia is firmly convinced that in today's conditions there is no way to solve the question of the use of force other than in the framework of the strengthening of the central role of the UN and international law. Only on such a basis is an effective answer possible to the present-day challenges and threats, in the first place such as international terrorism. Only on such a basis can preemptive steps be taken to neutralize those threats. Whereas going beyond the legitimate bounds of law can only increase the destabilizing trends in international relations and push states onto the road of ensuring their security solely by military means, including through the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles.

At the same time, as the United Nations Secretary General emphasized - and here one cannot but agree with him either - "it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some states feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action."

The debate at the session of the General Assembly showed that the overwhelming majority of states saw one of the main thrusts of these efforts in United Nations reform. The diversity of the tasks facing the UN, undoubtedly, requires a greater practical return on the efforts of the Organization. The UN must continually adapt itself to the new world realities. At issue, in particular, is the development of effective mechanisms for crisis prevention, the improvement of peacekeeping, assistance to the processes of multilateral disarmament and the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the combating of international terrorism and crime, the intensification of the measures for the eradication of poverty and the protection of the environment, and so on.

Particularly acute in the light of the lessons of the Iraq crisis is now the question of a reform of the United Nations Security Council. Russia advocates that this reform should be carried out on the basis of achieving the broadest possible consensus on all of its key aspects. The Security Council should become more representative, but necessarily retain its effectiveness and capacity to act quickly and promptly. It is of fundamental importance that the UN Security Council reform should be accomplished on the basis of a common understanding of the purposes and tasks which the world community places before this body for the long term. Only in this case will the modernization of the UN and its Security Council strengthen, not undermine their prestige and central role in world affairs.

The future world pattern also should be fair; that is, envisage the creation for all states of external conditions of existence that would best facilitate their sustainable economic and social development. It is necessary to find an answer to the concern ever more widely and persistently being expressed by the international community over the deepening split of the world into a rich "center" and poor "provinces," which creates a breeding ground for extremism, political violence and conflict.

An essential precondition for a fair new world pattern is the strengthening of international law. Without this we are doomed to continue to mark time before closed doors to the settlement of the numerous problems and conflicts, the key to which can only be the establishment of the primacy of law in international affairs.

Finally, the future world pattern ought to be democratic. It cannot be considered a normal situation in which the need would be recognized for the observance of democratic norms within states while an oligarchic model would be implanted in international life determining the rights and responsibilities of states toward each other and toward the world community as a whole solely according to their financial-economic and military strength.

A major condition of the ensuring of the democratic character of international relations is the solution of international problems on the basis of broad multilateral cooperation, taking into account the interests of all states. The general political debate at the 58th session of the UN General Assembly has demonstrated the unanimous support of this principle by the world community. In particular, as put by French President Jacques Chirac, "multilateralism is needed, as it ensures the participation of all in the running of world affairs. It guarantees legitimacy and democracy, especially when it comes to a decision to use force or ensure the adoption of universal standards."

Multilateralism is a reflection of the real diversity and interdependence of the contemporary world; that is, what in current political parlance is customary to call multipolarity.

It should be stressed that the concept of multipolarity, as understood in Russia, has nothing in common with rivalry or a "balance of forces" of the 19th-20th century type. In the era of globalization these phenomena are nearing the end of their life. This is important for the political observers to grasp who are inclined to reason and act according to the principle "who is not with us, is against us." The contemporary world is becoming ever more integral and interdependent, but remains infinitely diverse in its concrete political, cultural and civilizational manifestations. To respect this "unity through diversity" is one of the imperatives of the era of globalization.

There are all the grounds to assume that the formation of a multipolar world pattern is not a utopia, but an increasingly obvious imperative of present-day international relations.

The Iraq crisis has shown the futility of attempts to tackle even regional problems of a comparatively limited scope, let alone the tasks of global security, single-handedly. It has demonstrated that in the conditions of unity the world community can well tackle any, even the most complicated international and regional problems. And, on the contrary, disunity greatly impedes the quest for solutions, and paralyzes the activities of multilateral cooperation institutions and mechanisms.

The prerequisites for concerted actions by the world community do exist and bear quite an objective character.

The most important of them is that in the contemporary world relations between major powers to an ever greater extent are determined by common fundamental values. Despite all the complexities of the present stage of international life, favorable conditions have objectively taken shape at the beginning of the third millennium for the rallying of the entire world community to counter new threats and challenges. However, for this to become a reality, all the states, regardless of their political, military and economic strength, must become aware that the realization of their individual interests in the final analysis is impossible without the implementation of the collective interests of the international community.

In the course of the Iraq crisis the member states of the UN Security Council have demonstrated that they can well rise above tactical differences, however sharp, in the name of common global interests. It was no coincidence that, immediately after the end of active combat in Iraq in May 2003, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1483 permitting in certain measure the defusing of tension around the Iraq problem and the return of its discussion to the international legal field of the United Nations. This line received its further development in Security Council resolution 1511, which opens the process of the restoration of Iraq's sovereignty and substantially broadens the capacities of the UN in a political settlement there.

Russia in all the stages of the Iraq crisis was acting based on a firm belief that the differences over Iraq should not undermine the foundations of the Russian-American partnership, which has a separate importance as a key factor of security and strategic stability in the world. The meeting held at Camp David on September 26-27, 2003, between Presidents Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush has demonstrated the increased maturity of the relations of the two countries, capable, despite the differences on some questions or other, of maintaining their positive prospects and dynamics of evolution.

* * *

The Iraq crisis became a serious trial for Russian foreign policy as well. Essentially, it was a test of the effectiveness of the principles that had gradually been established in it over the last decade. And we appear to have stood this test. The question is, above all, one of the need to combine a firm and principled upholding of national interests with constructive actions in the broad interests of the entire world community.

Our steps on the international scene will continue to be directed towards the provision of external conditions for Russia which would reliably guarantee security and material well-being for Russian citizens and facilitate the socioeconomic prosperity of our country. At the same time we are fully aware that to tackle this task is only possible by following the road of close coordination and cooperation with other states. As President Putin declared in his address to the 58th UN General Assembly session, humanity has no alternative to building a safer, just and trouble-free world together. This is our duty to future generations.

Source: Russia Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.russianembassy.org.

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2003 The Acronym Institute.