Christina Lamb the Times Foreign Correspondant was in Afghanistan in 2002. The situation in Afghnaistan was changing “Kabul is a city transformed where women can walk down the street in make-up and high heels, without feeling the lash of the moral police.”
The fall of the Taliban, and the changes in Afghnaistan were reports of hope, given by the Times in 2002.
While the “Afghan War” continued in 2002, another issue became the centre of attention in the political sphere. Iraq.
The most important achievement of the U.S. and British coalition in Afghanistan in 2002 was the over throw of the Taleban regime. It was such a success that most Times writers used it as a reason why the U.S. and the British should get involved in Iraq.
The Times was an important supporter of Bush and Blair for the “Iraq War”. In a Comment article by David Quinn (Times writer) “Learn the lessons of history and deal with Saddam now” of December-26-2002.
“Those fond of saying that war only makes things worse, said the same thing when America was contemplating the overthrow of the Taliban regime following September-11. They also predicted that America would become bogged down in Afghan quagmire and that the Arab street would “explode”. In fact, the overthrow of the Taliban was achieved with an efficiency that surprised even the Americans, and delighted most of the people of Afghanistan.”
Bush and Blair had more difficulty in launching a war on Iraq than they did in Afghanistan. What made the procedure so long and so difficult for both governments? The United States of America is a permanent member of the United Nations. The starting point of the international law is Article 2(4) “which prohibits any nation from using force.”
What role did the United Nations play in the Iraq issue? How clear are the International laws? How far are the laws respected by Member States?
There are two situations of exception to Article 2(4). Force can be used “in self defence” (Article 51), or “when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII)”.
George Bush forwarded Article 51 and an argument for pre-emptive self defense in his September-12-2002 speech to the UN general assembly “in which he urged action on Iraq”.“We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather.”
Yet ” the use of force in self defense is justified when the need for action is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. The criteria is standard in international law. According to The United Nations, International Law, and the War in Iraq report, in which “an armed attack occurs, or is imminent- do not aptly describe the current Iraq crisis.”
The Bush administration used another exception which allows the use of force in order to justify war on Iraq. In ChapterVII of the U.N. Charter, a use of force is exceptionally allowed “to situations in which the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security.”
In Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address Iraq is a regime “with the world’s most destructive weapons”. It is clear that the Iraqi government had not respected Resolution 687 which “required it to disarm and cooperate with weapons inspector, among other things…” The situation gives a member state the legal authority to use force. The United States had to prove via United Nations weapons inspectors that Iraq possessed weapons of mass distruction.
In the United Nations, International Law, and the War in Iraq report, “according to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members to determine how the body’s resolutions are to be enforced.”
By reporting “messages” of a CIA Director ,George Tenet), the Times not only supports the Bush administration it also give proof that the Iraqi regime has weapons of mass distruction