US foreign policy during the Iraq Iran war - Essay Example

Introduction United s of America uses its foreign policy as a basis of interacting with other countries. The foreign policy of America is very influential to the world since it is the only super power left. The US foreign policy towards Iraq was illegitimate since it contravened the procedures and justifications provided by the United Nation's charter. The UN charter stipulates clearly the procedures that should be followed by a country to perpetrate coercion or violence to another state. The UN charter is the only legitimate basis that a country can use to attack another sovereign state since it has been reached through consensus by the member states forming the United Nations. The United States of America acted in total disregard of this charter and used its influence in the world to attack the regime of Saddam Hussein, condemning it of threatening the world peace (Arnove, & Abunimah, pp 89). US foreign policy during the Iraq Iran war Iraq was supported by America during its war with Iran; it was assisted both financially and technologically. The US supported Saddam despite the fact that it knew that it was Iraq that had invaded Iran as a result of border disputes which had been in existence for several years. The US used its foreign policies in an attempt to solve the crisis but was biased since it decided to support one side (Hiltermann, pp 130). The war was also as a result of suspicions of Shia insurgency which was influenced largely by the revolution in Iran. The United States of America supported the Iraq government and as a result about half a million people died comprising soldiers from both countries and civilians too. A lot of economic loss was also lost, the US which was supposed to use its foreign policies to enable it to effectively play the role of big brother to help the two countries resolve their differences, instead took sides in the war which only made matters worse. In fact, before the war began, American president, Carter, gave Saddam Hussein and his government the much needed green light for him to invade Iran. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the United States national security advisor met the Iraq president in Jordan so as to discuss how the two nations can join their efforts to oppose Iran on the issue of the border disputes which was the main contentious issue between the Iranians and the Iraqis (Gerber, Para 7-8). Brzezinski recommended in a memorandum, the destabilization of Iran by the US government by use of the surrounding countries. Although, the government of the united states of America denied any involvement in the Iraq-Iran war in the early 1980s, a few months before Iraq invaded Iran the US security advisor indicated that US was willing to work with Iraq. Just two months before Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, Brzezinski assured him that US was fully behind the Iraq government and that US was not opposed to the separation of the Khuzestan which was part of Iran. In this case the united states used their influence to attack Iran through Iraq and thus its foreign policies could not be said to be for the welfare of the world but for the good of the Americans and their allies and thus if a country is opposed to the opinion of the united states of America like Iran was in the 1980 war then it might be attacked either directly or through its neighbors by the US government (Gerber, Para 5). By the end of the US sponsored war both Iraq and Iran were devastated both economically and politically. The two countries had lost a lot of property and thousands of lives. Had the US kept off the war could not have reached such high magnitudes and thus such losses could have minimal. The US foreign policy in Iraq during the Iraq Iran war was favorable to the Iraqis but very unfavorable to the Iranians (Hiltermann, pp 180). US foreign policy during the 2003 Iraq war Things later changed when the regime of Saddam Hussein was blamed by the American government to threaten the world peace by manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Again the government of US used its foreign policies to attack the Iraq government. President Bill Clinton in 1998 signed into law an act the was intended to liberate the people of Iraq from the Saddam Hussein regime which the Americans argued was oppressive and was threatening the world peace and thus should be removed from power. The foreign policies of US allow them to confront another country if in its opinion the government of US feels that the regime in question is violating the rights of its people or is a threat to the world in one way or another. The US therefore used the Iraq Liberation Act to call for change in governance in Iraq. By doing so, the US government was contrasting the position held by the United Nations charter, the charter could only have allowed the Bush administration to attack Iraq if it had been attacked but this was not the case, this clearly indicated that the foreign policies of US were very much undemocratic and were in fact oppressive and guided by acts of dictatorship since even after the United Nations attempted to prevent US from attacking Iraq, everything went on as planned by the US government. The Republican Party advocated for full the implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act and also for the removal of Saddam Hussein from office (Arnove, & Abunimah, pp 156). The American government argued that it was not important to wait the United Nations to pass resolutions that would explicitly authorize the use of force in Iraq as this could mean taking a back seat and watch as a humanitarian crisis takes center stage in Iraq as it happened in Kosovo. By basing their argument on the Kosovo humanitarian catastrophe the American government justified the removal by force of the Iraq's undemocratic regime, arguing that the Iraq government was actually violating human rights of its citizens (Danchev, & MacMillan, pp 77). A major question evolves around America's consistency on its quest to support human rights and democracy in foreign countries. When the human rights and democracy are used as base of justifying morality of a government's policies then consistency is considered to be a vital factor. Such arguments when applied selectively loose meaning and the weight they ought to carry. Although, largely believed that the more powerful and democratic countries can support human rights and democracy on foreign countries, they cannot achieve their objectives by use of force, since that would in fact, mean violation of the same human rights that the American government was intending to protect in the first place (Arnove, & Abunimah, pp 213). The American government together with its supporters such as the British government justified the costs incurred in the Iraq war, by the liberation of the Iraqi citizens from an oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. But how could that be possible by the American government without involving the Iraqi people and claim the objective of the war is to benefit them. The Iraqi people ought to be included in their own liberation which was clearly not the case thus the American government claim that its intention in the war was to liberate them (Danchev, & MacMillan, pp 118). Conclusion The foreign policies of United States as used in the Iraq Iran war and later the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is a clear testimony that they are capable of high manipulation in order to be tailored according to the needs of US with much regard of the citizens of other countries who are likely to be affected negatively by such policies. United States used its policies and its influence to assist Saddam attack the Iranian government which led to the death of thousands of civilians mainly comprising women and children thus abusing the very rights they were claiming to protect. The war also led to the loss of a lot of property. US used the same policies it had used to strengthen the regime of Saddam Hussein to bring it down and eventually execute the man who had helped them fight Iran in the early 1980s. The foreign policies of US are therefore biased and should not be used in resolving international conflicts, but instead the resolutions of the United Nations should prevail when resolving such matters. Work cited: Arnove, Anthony & Abunimah, Ali; Iraq under siege: the deadly impact of sanctions and war (2003): Pluto Press, ISBN 0745320333. Danchev, Alex & MacMillan, John; the Iraq War and democratic politics (2005): Routledge, ISBN 0415351472. Gerber, Louis; US American foreign policy on Iraq (2003): Retrieved on 12th May from, http://www.cosmopolis.ch/english/cosmo34/us_american_foreign_policy_ira q.htm. Hiltermann, Joost R.; a poisonous affair: America, Iraq, and the gassing of Halabja (2007): Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521876869 Read More