Global Society, Vol. 20, No. 1, January, 2006
Pre-emptive Action in Iraq: Muddling Sovereignty and
Intervention?
BARBARA DELCOURT
The main purpose of this article is to use the theoretical framework offered by
Cynthia Weber to interpret the discourse of the American administration relating to
pre-emptive action in Iraq. According to CynthiaWeber, sovereignty has always been
an arena for the contestation of its meanings as its significance is intrinsically linked
to the practices of intervention in international relations, the way that action is
legitimised and in the name of whom. The discourses on intervention utilised by the
Bush-Cheney Administration will be analysed on this conceptual basis in order to
grasp the meaning of sovereignty that flows from them.
The second part of the paper is devoted to an issue that is more speculative and theoretical. One of the hypotheses is that in order to neutralise the chronic instability of the
American discourse, the notion of ‘responsibility’ is more and more used as a substitute
for sovereignty. As a result, legitimacy shifts from a legal and political level to an
‘ethical’ mode of discourse.
Introduction
The issues of sovereignty and intervention are often discussed in international
relations in conjunction with theoretical debates. Confrontations between realist
and idealist or liberal paradigms, empiricist and post-positivist methods,
rational-choice and constructivist orientations, can sometimes lead to a kind of
radical methodological scepticism for young researchers. Cynthia Weber’s book
Simulating sovereignty offers a way out.1 Her analysis uses a radical postmodern framework (inspired by Foucault and Baudrillard) but, at the same
time, draws on serious empirical research that, to some extent, neutralises the
main criticisms to such a methodological stance generally proffered by realists.
For realists, this epistemological approach often leads to dissertation without
content, mainly because it tends not to address questions of power relations
and interests in international relations. Cynthia Weber’s analysis represents
another way to deal with this question of power. It is moreover, to some extent,
more compelling in its grasp of actual trends in international politics than many
realist accounts of international politics.
1. Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty. Intervention, the State and the Symbolic Exchange
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
ISSN 1360-0826 print=ISSN 1469-798X online=06=0100047-21 # 2006 University of Kent
DOI: 10.1080=13600820500405475
48
B. Delcourt
My purpose is to use the theoretical framework offered by C. Weber to interpret
the discourse of the American administration relating to pre-emptive action in
Iraq. C. Weber poses the following questions on this issue: “How is the
meaning of sovereignty fixed or stabilized historically via discourses of international relations theorists and practices of political intervention? In other
words, how do practices of theorists and diplomats stabilize the meanings of
sovereignty and, by default, write the state?”.2 Sovereignty has always been an
arena for contestation of meanings; its significance is intrinsically linked to the
practices of intervention in international relations, the way they are legitimised
and in the name of whom. Therefore, the new discourses and practices of intervention utilised by the Bush-Cheney Administration could be analysed by resorting
to the same kind of conceptual framework.
The second part of the paper will be devoted to an issue that could not
properly be addressed through a post-modern analysis à la Weber insofar that it
is a more speculative and theoretical one, but which arises from it. In a way it
will highlight the great instability of the US discourse as well. Some suppositions
based on contemporary debates surrounding the Iraq Crisis are made. One
hypothesis is that in order to neutralise this chronic instability of the American
discourse, some people inside the American administration use the notion of
responsibility as a substitute for sovereignty which moves the category of
legitimacy from a legal and political level to an ethical one. Then, I will try to
assess the consequences, on both political and legal levels, of such a posture
and its consequences on the doctrinal foundations of sovereignty and
intervention.
Pre-emptive Action in Iraq: A Weberian Perspective
Cynthia Weber’s main assumptions regarding sovereignty and intervention will
be briefly explained and then applied to the specific case of U.S. intervention in
Iraq.
Theoretical Features of a Post-positivist Analysis
How do meanings of sovereignty and intervention take shape and how are they
put to work, by whom and on whose behalf? These are the core questions the
book addresses. For Cynthia Weber, “Intervention activity brings to the fore the
importance of casting meanings in particular ways which enable specific forms
of practice to take place legitimately in the eyes of a supposed interpretive community”.3
The meaning of sovereignty is fixed through practices of intervention. Therefore,
the justification for the intervention settles the question about the location of authority and the boundaries between “domestic” and “international communities”.
By the same token, the community is not “naturally” given, but “produced”
and constituted in the act of speech.4
2. Ibid., p. 3.
3. Ibid., p. 13 (emphasis added).
4. Ibid., p. 7.
Pre-emptive Action in Iraq
49
After having criticised behavioural and legal approaches to the question of
sovereignty and intervention in the international field,5 C. Weber opens the
door to interpretive approaches founded on Foucault’s and Baudrillard’s most
famous books6 Thanks to the former, one can answer the following questions:
How are sovereign foundations represented?
Through which strategies are power and knowledge organised so that
sovereign foundations are discursively constructed?
How in particular do justifications for intervention participate in the
construction of sovereign foundations, be they domestic (citizenries) or
international (interpretive communities)?
Thanks to Baudrillard, it is also possible to tackle the following issue:
What happens when it is no longer possible to represent foundations?
In a proper Foucaldian-style analysis, sovereignty and disciplinary mechanisms
are two absolutely integral constituents of the general mechanism of power.
Sovereign foundations are produced as signs that make representational projects
possible and allow sovereignty and the state to refer to some original source of
truth. The two main referents of sovereignty proposed throughout history have
been god and the people. This is a fundamental way in which power and knowledge function in a logic of representation. These signs do not exist naturally; they
must be produced. Being a state depends not only upon a political representation
but also upon a symbolic representation: the foundations of sovereign authority
and the communities, which judge them to be legitimate, must be constituted
(symbolically represented) before they can be politically represented.
In using this kind of theoretical framework, Weber argues that in the case of
the interventions by the Concert of Europe (Naples, Spain), the Wilson Administration (Mexico, USSR), and the Reagan-Bush Administration (Grenada, Panama),
each intervening power was constituted as one community of judgement about
the true meaning of sovereignty and intervention and the true location of
sovereign authority.
Weber underlines a paradox in the practice of intervention: while this kind of
act often destabilises international politics, intervention discourses claim to be
producing or re-stabilising concepts like the state and sovereignty.
“Intervening states offer justifications for their actions to a supposed international community and couch their justifications in terms of acting on
behalf of the sovereign authority in the target state. This has three
effects. It produces an international community of judgment. It produces a
5. Cynthia Weber considers that these conventional patterns tend to fix a meaning that is somehow
artificial and not consistent with most practices and discourses relating to sovereignty and intervention, ibid., pp. 20–21.
6. Jean Baudrillard, In the shadow of the Silent Majorities, or, The End of the Social and Other Essays
(Foreign Agents Series, New York: Semiotext(e), 1983); Mark Poster ed., Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988); Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of
the Prison (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge:Selected Interviews
and Other Writings 1972– 1977, edited by Colin Gordon et al. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980).
50
B. Delcourt
sovereign authority in the target state. Finally and most importantly, it
participates in drawing the sovereignty/intervention boundary that represents
or “writes” the state.”7
These effects can be observed as well in the current crisis in Iraq.
Intervention in Iraq through the Lenses of Weber
At first sight, the most striking feature of the US discourse regarding the intervention in Iraq is the absence of reference to the droit d’ingérence (right to intervention)
so famous and popular in France. In cases of great human suffering such as that
caused by the regime of Saddam Hussein (which have been copiously denounced
by governments and NGOs) one might have expected such a reference. On this
point, the analysis of Cynthia Weber is very useful in explaining this apparently
paradoxical situation and, more generally, to understand the process by which
Iraqi freedom is legitimated.
In the Name of Self-determination
The US argument for intervening in Iraq in 2003 is similar to President Wilson’s
justification of the US intervention in Mexico in 1917. Cynthia Weber argues
that, in fighting for self-determination, the Wilson administration could not possibly have promoted a right to intervention precisely because it entailed political
interference from the outside and thus contravened the sovereign authority of
the people in the “target state”.8 Thus, in order to legitimise the US involvement
in Mexican domestic affairs, President Wilson argued that the Mexican government ruled by Huerta was not representative of the Mexican people. Such a distinction between the people and its government enabled the administration to
speak for and act on behalf of the Mexican people without resorting to a right to
interfere precisely because it was not presented as an intervention or a violation
of the sovereignty principle.9
The Bush administration has used a typical Wilsonian-style discourse in saying
that US military action in Iraq was justified to defend the sovereignty of the Iraqi
people.10 According to the Bush administration, the Iraqi people’s sovereignty
could not be freely expressed under a government headed by Saddam Hussein.
Until now, the Iraqi people could not act as a community of judgment. Thanks
to Operation Freedom in Iraq, partially launched in the name of the right of
Iraqi people to self-determination, representative democracy in Iraq became an
7. Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty. Intervention, the State and the Symbolic Exchange, op.
cit., p. 125 (emphasis added).
8. Ibid., p. 14.
9. Ibid., pp. 63–64.
10. See for instance the remarks made by Colin Powell, “US Using its Power Responsibility Powell
Says. Interview with U.S. News and World Report”, 28 April 2003, p. 5, available: ,http://
www.uspolicy.be.; “Bush: U.S. ‘Used Might In the name of Peace and Freedom’ in Iraq”, April 24
2003, ibid.; Paul Wolfowitz, “Town Hall Meeting with Iraqi-American Community”, 23 February
2003, pp. 2–3, available: ,http://www.defenselink.mil.
Pre-emptive Action in Iraq
51
attainable objective. Donald Rumsfeld had already underlined this goal a few
weeks before the intervention:
There are even some doubts that democracy could ever take root in the
Arab world. Here’s my response to the critics: look at the people of
northern Iraq. Beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein and his regime
for a decade, they’ve shown an impressive ability to manage longstanding differences and develop relatively free and prospering societies.
Look at the Iraqi-Americans here today and throughout this country
and see how quickly they have adapted to a democratic system. And,
finally, I would say to these doubters, look at the Iraqi people’s long
yearning for representative government and their long suffering under
one of the most oppressive dictatorships the world has known.
Perhaps more than any people, they have been inoculated against
tyranny. As you know, the values of freedom and democracy are not
just Western values or European values. They are Muslim and Asian
values as well. Indeed, they are universal values. They are the bridge
that spans civilization.11
In the aftermath of the intervention, Wolfowitz dismissed the possibility of an
Iranian-style theocracy: “Democratic tyranny is not something that we could
support . . . and I frankly don’t think that most of the Shia want a clerical
tyranny over them”.12 Marc Grossman, Under-Secretary of State for Political
Affairs told Al-Arabiyyia: “Obviously, we did not liberate Iraqis just to have
another kind of dictatorship come, and so what we want is a democratic Iraq
that is a multi-ethnic Iraq and multi-religious Iraq as well, that’s got everybody
involved in it”.13
Who are the People of Iraq?
As demonstrated by C. Weber, Wilson’s foreign policy can be interpreted as
devoted to the principle of self-determination but, at the same time
avoiding the following question: “how is the identity of the people decided?
How are the people produced so they can be represented?”;14 or to put it in a
non-post-modern fashion: who decides who are the people? Some 50 years
ago, a famous international lawyer, Sir Jennings, had already raised the
question:
Nearly forty years ago, a Professor of Political Science, who was also
President of the United States, President Wilson, enunciated a doctrine,
which was ridiculous, but was widely accepted as a sensible proposition,
11. Ibid., p. 3; see also “President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and the Middle East”, 6 November
2003, pp. 2–3, available ,http://www.whitehouse.gov.
12. “Wolfowitz Criticizes Turkey for Not Backing U.S. on Iraq”, 7 May 2003, available: ,http://
www.uspolicy.be.
13. “Grossman Says U.S. is Liberator not Occupier of Iraq”, 30 April 2003, available: ,http://
www.uspolicy.be.
14. Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty. Intervention, the State and the Symbolic Exchange, op.
cit., pp. 27 and 82.
52
B. Delcourt
the doctrine of self-determination. On the surface, it seemed reasonable:
let the people decide. It was in fact ridiculous, because people cannot
decide until someone decides who are the people.15
It is not sufficient to say: “Iraqi leaders met in An Nasariyah to begin discussing
the process that will lead to a new government that will represent and serve the
true interests of the Iraqi people. A government of the Iraqi people, by the Iraqi people
and for the Iraqi people”.16 Because in most cases intervention operations occurred
in divided societies (such as Bosnia-Herzegovina), “the convenient practice of
pointing to a government (signifier) as the representative of a people (signified)
often was not an option because governments were falling and populations were
dividing into opposing political factions”.17 Consequently, the intervening state
has to invent a people in some form which could serve to legitimise the operation
in the eyes of the international community. In the context of the Russian revolution
(1917), some parties were identified by the Wilson Administration as truly ‘liberaldemocrats’ and so were entitled to ‘represent’ the people against the class-minded
communist government.18 In comparison, R. Reagan’s and G. W. Bush’s discourses
on Panama and Grenada no longer used the justification of an ‘emerging liberalcapitalist group’ but instead produced opinion polls expressing approval of the
invasion, thus reducing the people to statistical abstracts.19
The ‘invention’ of the Iraqi people seems to be more complex insofar that it has
resorted to several methods from the beginning of the crisis until now (December
2003). Before the intervention, it was mainly the Iraqi Diaspora in US and the
Kurdish community – as they were experiencing democracy – who were considered as the true voice expressing the interests of Iraqi people.20 The situation
became more confused after the fall of Baghdad. During the first week, the Iraqi
people were generally depicted as a whole community who welcomed the
coalition forces for having liberated them from tyranny.21 There was no public
15. Sir Jennings, The Approach to Self-Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956),
pp. 55– 56; see also the European discourse on self-determination for Yugoslav peoples, Barbara
Delcourt, Droit et souverainetés. Analyse critique du discours européen sur la Yougoslavie (Bruxelles:
P.I.E.-Peter Lang, 2003).
16. Paul Wolfowitz on 15 April (emphasis added), see also the 13 principles laid down to guide the
conversation among Iraqis, available: ,http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2003/sp20030425.
17. Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty. Intervention, the State and the Symbolic Exchange,
op. cit., p. 83.
18. In his remarks at the 20th Anniversary on the National Endowment for Democracy, President
Bush reminded the audience that “In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster
Palace and declared the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had
failed, precisely because it did not respect its own people – their creativity, their genius and their
rights”, “President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and the Middle East”, 6 November 2003, available:
,http://www.whitehouse.gov.
19. Cynthia WEBER, Simulating Sovereignty. Intervention, the State and the Symbolic Exchange, op.
cit., p. 15.
20. Town Hall Meeting with Iraqi-American Community, 23 February 2003, available: ,http://
www.defenselink.mil.. Despite its enduring support of Kurdish minority in Iraq, the US administration has never supported a right to independence (as being a consequence of a general right to
self-determination). The right to self-determination is only considered for the entire population of
the Iraqi state. In this way, the American position may be judged as being consistent with the
current legal doctrine on self-determination and minority rights, see Barbara Delcourt, Droit et
souverainetés . . . , op. cit., pp. 259 –264.
21. Available: ,http://www.whitehouse.gov. link to Iraqi freedom. (consulted in May 2003).
Pre-emptive Action in Iraq
53
opinion poll and the INC (Iraqi National Congress) officially supported by the
Americans was an unlikely representative of all Iraqi communities; even the
American authorities do not make such a claim. Moreover, the US Administration
was still engaged in persuading us that the Iraqi Freedom operation had been
launched for the benefit of the Iraqi people as a whole. In surfing the Pentagon
or White House official Internet sites, one can get a relatively good idea of the
social profiles of the ‘Voices of freedom’22 that permitted Grossman’s assertion
that the “U.S. is Liberator not Occupier of Iraq”.23 Many enthusiastic testimonies
were given by exiles in London or in the USA or by Iraqis expressing themselves
through American and British media or Abu Dhabi TV. When mentioned, their
professional activities are notably ‘liberal’ or ‘cultural’ ones (authors, producers
of T.V. programmes, teachers and students, café proprietors, sellers of books
and satellite dishes, even “women wearing bright dresses and new lipstick”.24
Some were more innocuous like an old man saying, “It does not matter
whether Saddam is dead or in Paris”25 (sic), or people regretting the hostile
attitude of some American artists towards the war in Iraq. A large number of
the opinions focused on their happiness at the rediscovery of religious freedom
for the Shi’a community. Taking into account the fact that it is the largest community in Iraq (around 60%), this is certainly a way to suggest that American policy is
supported at least by a majority of its people.26
The challenge faced by the occupying powers was to get a government that
would have the appearance of a truly representative one when the purpose was
mainly “to bolster the INC’s bid for the country’s leadership”.27 Once again, the
intervening states are participating in the allocation of power and authority in a
target state by selecting those who will represent the sovereign people of Iraq:
Demonstrators outside the conference [On April 15, 2003, the U.S. military
convened a meeting of Iraqi opposition groups to select a leader to work
alongside the occupation regime] expressed concern that the Nasiriyah
meeting was not representative of the Iraqi population. Many Iraqi
leaders who travelled to the venue to participate in the conference were
denied entry by the United States. A member of the outlawed communist
22. Available: ,http://www.whitehouse.gov, “Global messages”.(Operation Iraqi Freedom).
23. April 2003, available: , http://www.uspolicy.be.; Robert Fisk (a journalist from The Independent) reminds us that in a address to the population of Baghdad issued in March 1917, General
Stanley Maude also denied any intention of conquering the country. On the contrary, he assured the
people of the good intention of the British army which aimed at liberating the people from tyranny,
Courrier International, No. 645, 13– 19 March 2003, p. 14.
24. Los Angeles Times, 10 April 2003 cited by Voices of Freedom, available: ,http://
www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/liberation.html.
25. Ibid.
26. But this sudden concern for the Shi’a community may also be explained by the fact that most
recent terrorist activities have been carried out by Sunni Arabs. This is certainly a move from the previous attitudes of American administrations in the Gulf region. For Eugene Rogan, Director of the
Middle East Centre at St Anthony’s College Oxford, the US led coalition is facing the same dilemma
as in 1991, when the US encouraged Iraqi Shi’ites and Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein but
finally decided instead the these groups were the wrong Iraqis to overthrow the dictator, Antoine
Blua, Radio Free Europe.28 April 2003.
27. Garner, Jay, “Multi-Party Iraqi Interim Authority to Begin to Work in May”, 5 May 2003, available: ,http://www.uspolicy.be.; Mark Sedra, “Who Will Govern Iraq?, Foreign Policy in Focus,
April 2003, p. 4; available: ,http://www.fpif.org.
54
B. Delcourt
party who was turned away at the gates of the conference by U.S. soldiers
said ‘It can’t represent the political and social parties and movements
inside the country, and I can prove it because nobody from the
inside opposition is attending the conference’. The U.S. refusal to
divulge the names of those who attended the event, another example of
the Pentagon’s secretive approach to the reconstruction process, has
done little to assuage the fears of Iraqis. The U.S. ‘announced that all
opposition parties could attend the conference, but only those supported
by them attended’ one Shi’a leader complained.28
Some changes have occurred since the removal of Jay Garner, a retired General
sent to Iraq as civil administrator. With the designation of Paul Bremer and the
constitution of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), the diversity of Iraqi society
seemed likely to be taken into account. This move enabled G.W. Bush to consider
the governing Council to be “the first truly representative institution” in Iraq.29
For many observers, the ethnic profile of the people in the IGC is illustrative of
the way the American administration understands Iraqi society.30 Some editorials
from the new Iraqi press were clearly suspicious of this move and have accused
the US of “aiming to divide Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines”.31 At the
same token, public opinion polls taken in some parts of the country supported
the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) moving forward despite the violence.32
Which Interpretive Community?
The process by which intervention practices can be legitimised by others may be
regarded as another issue. According to Weber’s analysis, interpretive communities are deemed to judge the legitimacy of intervention. Traditionally, and to
be considered as a genuine interpretive community that could function as a legitimating institution as well, the community of judgment must lie outside the
internal sphere of the intervening state. But most of the time, the intervening
state will try to define the type of community most fitted for such a purpose. Reassessing the previous experiences of US interventionism, Weber pinpoints different
scenarios. For instance, in the Grenada case, the Reagan-Bush Administration
chose to use the green light given by the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean
28. Ibid., p. 3; The controversy surrounding the self-appointed Mayor Al-Zubaidi is symptomatic of
the grip US forces want to keep on political authorities in Iraq, “Coalition Forces Detain Self-Proclaimed
‘Mayor of Baghdad’, U.S. Central Command April 27 2003 news release”, available: ,http://
www.uspolicy.be.
29. “President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly”, New York, 12 September 2003.
30. International Crisis Group, Governing Iraq, ICG Middle East Report, No 17, (Baghdad, 15 August
2003), pp. 12–13.
31. MEMRI Baghdad Dispatch (8), 12 September 2003, No. 572. Some newspapers remind the reader
that ethnic division was used by British colonialism to control the country, MEMRI Baghdad Dispatch
(4), 8 August 2003, available: ,http://www.memri.org. (The Middle East Media Research Institute).
32. Dr Nimrod Raphaeli, “Iraq: Moving forward Despite Violence”, October 9, 2003, No150, MEMRI
available: ,http://www.memri.org. Findings taken for the American Entreprise Institute in October
2003 showed that Iraqis were optimistic about their future, (seven out of 10 said they expected their
country and their personal lives would be better five years from now). Even if a majority of people
did not like being under foreign occupation, 59% of respondents said they would give the CPA the
additional time to initiate political and economic reforms, ibid.
Pre-emptive Action in Iraq
55
States as legitimisation for their intervention rather than paying heed to the
declarations and positions issued by the UN or the OAS, which were more
critical of US policy.33 The same kind of scenario operated during the Kosovo
War when NATO was presented as the regional organisation which best
expressed the interests and the values of the international community, whereas
the UN was depicted as a bureaucratic institution unable to stop a genocide
occurring in Europe.34
In Iraq Allies and Friends, that is the Coalition of the Willing, are playing the role of
the interpretive community. On the White House site dedicated to operation Iraqi
Freedom, one can see the list of the 49 countries that are committed, one way or the
other, to the operation in Iraq. It does not claim to be the international community
but this coalition presents similar features: “every major race, religion, ethnicity in
the world is represented. The coalition includes nations from every continent on
the globe”.35 The argument is reinforced by the statement that the operation has
been launched “in order to enforce 17 UN resolutions” the UN was unable to
enforce.36
The US as a Substitute for the UN?
The joint Senate and the House of Representatives resolution authorising the use
of United States Armed Forces against Iraq, recalled that in 1990, the US had
forged a coalition of states to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend
the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council
resolutions relating to Iraq. In 1998, Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing
weapons of mass destruction programmes threatened vital United States interests
and international peace and security.37 On the one hand, the legal argumentation
developed by US diplomats in this case was based on previous UN resolutions,
in particular the one which authorised the use of force in 1990.38 On the other
hand, their legitimate political goal was to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government. The powers of
the President of the USA were also recited: he has the authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
33. Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty. Intervention, the State and the Symbolic Exchange, op.
cit., p. 15.
34. O. Corten et B. Delcourt (eds.), Droit, légitimation et politique extérieure: l’Europe et la guerre du
Kosovo (Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2001). See also, “Condoleeza Rice on Shared Values, Interest of the U.S.
and Allies”, 15 October 2002, available: ,http://www.whitehouse.gov.
35. http://www.whitehouse.gov.infocus/iraq, “The coalition”.
36. Richard Perle, “Thank God the death of the UN”, Friday 21 March 2003, The Guardian;
“Powell Confident of Strong ‘Coalition of the Willing’ Against Iraq”. Powell Press Conference with
U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’, 23 January 2003, available: ,http://www.uspolicy.be.;
“President’s Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly”, 12 September 2003, available:
,http://www.whitehouse.gov.
37. “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Forces Against Iraq”, 2 October 2002,
available: ,http://www.whitehouse.gov.
38. See also “U.S. Diplomats Object to Annan Statements on Iraq”, 24 April 2003, available: ,http://
www.uspolicy.be.; “President’s Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly”, September 12,
2003, available: ,http://www.whitehouse.gov.
56
B. Delcourt
against the United States, as Congress recognised in the joint resolution on
‘Authorization for use of Military Force’ (Public Law 107 –40).39 Many of the
discourses produced by American institutions refer to this kind of natural
convergence between US interests and UN resolutions and goals.40 As far back
as 1968, Wolfgang Friedmann had explained that:
Where an intervening power becomes the self-appointed executant of a
global policy, the universalism of [ . . . ] the UN Charter becomes a pale
shadow. The only conceivable justification for such dichotomy of attitudes
is the assertion that the United States stands, globally and regionally, as a
defender of self-determination and freedom, a guardian of the principles
of the Charter which the United Nations itself is unable to enforce.41
The Domestication of Iraqi Sovereignty
In the case of the invasion of Panama, the US administration seemed to be the only
interpretive community. Subsequently, US foreign policy was almost designated
as US domestic policy.42 Their link between the operation in Iraq and American
security (before and after the battle) was quite well-established, as outlined
above. Nevertheless, with the domestication of Iraq through the discourse on
the war on terrorism it becomes difficult to distinguish between Iraqi sovereignty
and US sovereignty.
A second complication arose from the domestication of Iraq: if the invasion of
Iraq is transformed into a domestic matter, no international community can
judge where the sovereignty-intervention boundary lies: sovereignty and intervention cease to function as dichotomous terms. It is no longer possible to
oppose sovereignty and intervention.43 In other words they are interchangeable.
Distinctions between the domestic and international spheres are blurring. Therefore if the Bush administration could not represent the sovereign will of Iraqi
people then it had to enable a simulation of that sovereignty which could be distinguished from US sovereignty. The fact that the US administration had to rely
mainly on the Iraqi Diaspora44 (most of them being US citizens) clearly exposes
39. “House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq”, 10 October 2002, available:
,http://www.uspolicy.be.
40. See for instance, Richard Haass, “The Goal Becomes Muslim Democracy”, International Herald
Tribune, 11 December 2002, op-ed. This kind of ‘narrative’ clearly appears in Bush Declarations concerning the US global policy, see Edward Rhodes, “Onward Liberal Soldiers? The Crusading Logic
of Bush’s Grand Strategy and What Is Wrong With It”, available: ,http://www.ciaonet.org/special_
section/iraq/analysis., p. 15.
41. Wolfgang Friedmann, “Interventionism, Liberalism, and Power Politics: the Unfinished Revolution in International Thinking”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 83, No 2 (June 1968), p. 174.
42. By the 19100 s, the United States officially viewed revolutions as domestic issues only so long as
they were liberal revolutions with the goal of putting in place liberal, democratic government. The
domestic-international boundary became less distinct during the invasions of Grenada and Panama
in the 19800 s. Like the Wilson Administration, the Reagan-Bush Administrations viewed revolutions
and civil unrest as domestic issues because they concerned the US people., Cynthia Weber, Simulating
Sovereignty. Intervention, the State and the Symbolic Exchange, op. cit., p. 13.
43. Ibid., pp. 120 –121.
44. See for instance, “President Discusses the Future of Iraq”, Remarks by the President on
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Ford Community and Performing Arts Center, Dearborn, Michigan, available: ,http://www.whitehouse.gov.infocus/iraq. (Operation Iraqi Freedom).
Pre-emptive Action in Iraq
57
the enduring difficulties of constructing a people into a format that could lead to
fulfilling self-determination in the way suggested by Woodrow Wilson.
According to the Wilsonian principle of democracy based on self-determination,
three conditions must be fulfilled. A ‘self’ (a domestic political citizenry) must be
produced and distinguished from others (foreigners). A clear boundary must
exist between the domestic and international spheres in order to enable the
definition of the domestic citizenry. Once identified, a citizenry must be invested
with sovereign authority, that is to say, that it is capable of exercising the
supreme authority inside the territory on all traditional matters that pertain to
the state.45 Clearly, those criteria are not currently being met in Iraq.46
From a Logic of Representation to a Logic of Simulation?
Cynthia Weber argues that, “In a logic of representation, a boundary ‘truly’ exists
between sovereignty and intervention, and this boundary ensures the distinction
between these two terms. It allows them to perform as opposites. Because sovereignty defines the domain of a state’s legitimate authority and intervention marks
the outer limit of this authority, the sovereignty/intervention boundary is the
location of the state”.47 In a logic of simulation, because sovereignty and intervention are interchangeable terms which respect no boundary, a boundary between
them must be simulated in order to offer the state recourse to what Baudrillard
calls an “alibi function”.48 As there are no traditional underpinnings of sovereignty in this situation, that is god or the people, the state must find an alternative
foundation for its authority. Sovereignty has no natural or use value in simulation.
What sovereignty does retain is sign value but it is no longer a foundational term.
In simulation, sovereignty and intervention cease to function as opposing labels.
They become two signifiers, which are interchangeable. In so doing, simulation is
fatal to the system of representation, which requires some value (sovereignty) to
insure the value of its terms within the system.
The following extract from a press conference exemplifies this complex issue. It
is related to the mentioned earlier sentence: “We are not an occupying power but a
liberating force” . . .
Question to Ambassador Moley after the Secretary-General’s statement to the
Commission on Human Rights: You said earlier that you have made it
clear from day one that you would respect Geneva Conventions, The
Hague etc. but a couple of weeks ago when [asking] questions at
45. Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty. Intervention, the State and the Symbolic Exchange, op.
cit., pp. 81–82.
46. International Crisis Group, Governing Iraq, op. cit., pp. 10–12. In June 2004, some competencies
were transferred to an Iraqi political body. But it does not mean that sovereignty was restored as such,
see the interview between a journalist and the Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage . . . “Q: But,
in other words, in terms of rebuilding, in terms of oil industry, in terms of everything, say, non military,
the Iraqis will be running the show? A: “Well, clearly, it’ll be our money, but by that time the $ 18,7
billion which Congress was kind enough to appropriate should be moving well into Iraqi infrastructure
projects, and the Iraqis will, indeed, be running their own show”, “Armitage Says U.S. Committed to
Plan Iraqi Sovereignty by 2004”, available: ,http//:www.uspolicy.be.
47. Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty. Intervention, the State and the Symbolic Exchange,
op. cit., p. 127.
48. Ibid., p. 126.
58
B. Delcourt
Central Command in Doha about the issue of occupying power, the
response was, well we are not at that stage yet, it’s a liberating force.
Answer: You have mixed metaphors there. You asked me about Geneva
Conventions and The Hague and I would reply as I did earlier, we have
been fully, fully in conformity and intend to be since day one, not only
by virtue of our words, but also by virtue of our actions on the ground
that demonstrate that.
Q: So there is no separate occupying or liberating force category?
A: We are simply saying that the issue of an occupying power has not yet
been dealt with. Once again the situation is quite fluid.49
According to Baudrillard, the notion of simulation (instead of representation) is
more relevant in such cases because there is no referent: it is all a matter of substituting signs of reality for the reality itself.50 On this point, Colin Powell brandishing before the Security Council a small phial of what was purportedly meant to
be evidence of Iraqi WMD resembles more a conjuring trick than a truly rational
demonstration.51 Subsequently, we learnt that the issue of WMD was used mainly
because it was the only way of gaining consensus among all the segments of the
American administration for the project of invading Iraq.52 This element is certainly one reason that helps to explain the great confusion in the arguments. In
the end, the argument appears to be quite slippery – or fluid – encompassing
the need to fight terrorism, to stop the spread of WMD,53 to enforce UN resolutions and to overthrow tyrannical regimes and so forth.54 This simulation
process could also be seen in the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad when, for
instance, the use of mobile phones, the spread of satellite dishes and internet
coffee shops and the 160 Iraqi newspapers were used as “signs” of the establishment of democracy following the military occupation of the country.55
49. “U.S. Diplomats Object to Annan Statements on Iraq”, 24 April 2003, p. 3, available: ,http://
www.uspolicy.be.. In September 2003, in his address to the nation, President Bush still stated that
the “coalition came to Iraq as liberators and will depart as liberators”, “President Addresses to the
Nation”, 7 September 2003.
50. Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty. Intervention, the State and the Symbolic Exchange, op.
cit., p. 37; “Une déclaration de guerre devient un mélange de spectacle et de plaidoirie; comme si cet
hommage à la puissance des médias et du droit était la ruse suprême de la violence”, FrançoisBernard Huyghe, “Démocratie et propagande”, Diplomatie Magazine, No 3 (mai-juin 2003), p. 43.
51. American reliance on emotion and spin compared badly with more rational arguments. Listen to,
“le mot de la fin – convaincre” by Alain Rey, France Inter, 6 November 2003 and compare the “cartesian” attitude of Jacques Chirac, interview for The New York Times, Palais de l’Elysée, 9 September
2002; see also Courrier International, No. 56, 28 May–4 June 2003 (Dossier: “les mensonges de
George Bush”) and Maureen DOWD’s article in The New York Times that compares the absurd messages of “Comical Ali” to those delivered by the Bush Administration, Courrier International, No. 649,
6–12 November 2003.
52. Interview, Vanity Fair Magazine, reproduced in Le Monde, 30 May 2003, available: ,http://
www.lemonde.fr.
53. See the very compelling analysis made by Rosalyn Higgins, “Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Rhetoric and realities”, ISIS Policy Paper, No. 85 (December 2002).
54. “Wolfowitz Says U.S. Goal in Iraq ‘Right Now’ Is Disarmament”, 6 December 2002, available:
,http://www.uspolicy.be.; “Boucher Denounces Human Rights Abuses By Iraqi Regime”, December
2002, ibid.
55. See Dr Nimrod Raphaeli, “Iraq: Moving forward Despite Violence”, op. cit.; Discussions with
White House officials, “Ask the White House”, available: ,http:/www.whitehouse.gov.
Pre-emptive Action in Iraq
59
From Sovereignty to Responsibility?
The instability of discourses surrounding pre-emptive action56 flows from the fact
that this concept has been used to sustain offensive strategies rather than defensive ones. Preventive wars have indeed occurred or had been envisaged by
Germany and Japan before the Second World War.57 The Austro-Hungarian
Empire announced a preventive war against Serbia after the assassination of
Franz-Ferdinand. When he made a stand against the German imperial policy in
1914, Karl Liebknecht argued against preventive wars considering instead that
they were in fact offensive ones.58 Ironically, this is precisely the kind of argument
Kissinger used in the 19700 s in order to undermine some proposals to change the
US doctrine on the no-first use of nuclear weapons.59 According to Robert Kagan
the doctrine is a liberal one,60 but a lot of texts and documents found on the web
(with the help of a search engine like google) supporting pre-emptive or preventive
wars are clearly linked to sites expressing anti-liberal ideologies or even fascist
ones.61 Once again, it testifies to a complete confusion between aggression and
self-defence paralleling the one that occurred between sovereignty and
intervention.
From a legal point of view, preventive wars (or pre-emptive actions) run
counter to the UN Charter and contradict the rules pertaining to the use of
force in international relations. Only a few states acknowledge a right to preventive self-defence. Even in this case, the expression seems a contradiction in terms
in so far as self-defence implies a reaction to an aggression that must be based on
an ‘imminent attack’ and then tangible evidence, conditions the US Secretary for
Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, would certainly find much too ‘Cartesian’ in a world
threatened by fanatical terrorists because . . . “There are things we know that we
know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things we know
that we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things
we don’t know we don’t know . . . each year, we discover a few more of the
unknown unknowns”62
In any case, pre-emptive action as proposed by the National Security Council in
order to protect the security of US citizens and interests could hardly be justified
by this quite old doctrine of preventive self-defence. The situation is actually paradoxical. The new threats and the unprecedented character of the challenge faced by
56. Barbara Delcourt, ‘Les dommages collatéraux de la nouvelle stratégie états-unienne: de la sécurité collective à la sécurité sélective’, in B. Delcourt, D. Duez, E. Remacle (eds.), La guerre d’Irak, prélude
d’un nouvel ordre international? (Bruxelles: P.I.E.-Peter Lang, 2004), pp. 21– 39.
57. Jack. S. Levy, “Declining Power and the Preventive Motivation for War”, World Politics, Vol. 40,
No 1 (October 1987), p. 84.
58. Address to the Reichstag (2 December 1914), extract from Alfred Rosmern, Le mouvement
ouvrier pendant la première guerre mondiale, available: ,http://www.marxists.org/francais/
liebknec/1914.
59. Lauwrence FREEDMAN, The Evolution of Nuclear strategy, Studies in International Security
(London: Macmillan, 1981), p. 163.
60. Robert Kagan, “Puissance américaine, faiblesses européennes”, Le Monde, 26 juillet 2002.
61. Site Conservative Truth.org: The antidote to the Liberal Media; Site du MNR (mouvement
national républicain de Bruno Mégret); Wilhem Tell Revisionismus, Crapouillot juillet 1933 (“Politique
extérieure d’Hitler”, preventive war against the USSR is justified by the need to avoid the dissemination of revolutionary social movements).
62. Mary Kaldor, “American power: from ‘compellance’ to cosmopolitanism?”, International Affairs,
Vol. 79/I (2003), p. 12.
60
B. Delcourt
US power are being used today to push aside the rules enshrined in the UN
Charter.63 In spite of the claims of unprecedented threats, the US draws its justification for attempting to legalise pre-emptive action from the founding fathers
of the jus gentium (Grotius, Vattel) or from anti-modern doctrines (Leo Strauss,
Edmund Burke).64
Which Conception of Sovereignty?
The American discourse developed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 has
been constructed with reference to self-help doctrines and very classical views
of what sovereignty entails at the international level. It encompasses very
traditional views of what the international system should be: “We must defeat
these threats to our nation, allies and friends [ . . . ] We will preserve peace by
building good relations among the great powers”.65 However, this is not as
traditional as it seems to be at first glance. The Holy Alliance’s telos, which
had also been based on a legitimacy principle, was more a balance of power
than seeking primacy. The American discourse, since the end of the cold war,
has as its main objective for US security strategy a position of primus inter
pares.66 As President Bush states: “In exercising our leadership, we will respect
the values, judgment, and interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will
be prepared to act apart when our interests and unique responsibilities
require”.67
What are the potential consequences of this posture on the sovereignty
principle? Kissinger has clear views on this issue
Bush’s pre-emption doctrine is ‘revolutionary’. It challenges a system of
international sovereignty established by the Treaty of Westphalia in
1648. The Treaty elicited the principle of non-intervention in domestic
affairs by foreign states. Even seemingly justified pre-emption runs
counter themodern international law, which sanctions the use of force
in self-defence only against actual, not potential, threats.68
As we have seen, the most striking consequence of muddling sovereignty and
intervention in this case is the manifest incapacity, for the moment, to ‘write’ the
state of Iraq because the location of authority is almost entirely lying inside the
US domestic sphere. For a few years, the increase in foreign military interventions
in order to restore a legitimate order has led to new forms of protectorates based
on some form of coercive multilateral diplomacy. Actually, Kosovo and Bosnia
63. See for instance, the conversation between Brit Hume and General McInerney, Fox News,
6 June 2002; “President Delivers ‘State of Union’”, 28 January 2003, available: ,http://
www.whitehouse.gov.
64. Barbara Delcourt, “Les dommages collatéraux de la stratégie états-unienne: de la sécurité
collective à la sécurité sélective”, op. cit.
65. U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, Electronic Journal of the Department of State 7(4), December 2002.
66. Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross, “Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy”, International
Security, Vol. 21, No 3 (Winter 1996–1997), pp. 32 and ff.
67. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, p. 31.
68. Henry Kissinger, in Yaukey, John, Ganett News Service, 16 September 2002.
Pre-emptive Action in Iraq
61
came under a form of international administration due to such a “vacuum of
sovereignty”.69 Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war against terrorism goes
perhaps a step beyond that in so far as the sovereignty principle seems to be
impaired, not only for the target states, but also for the other members of the international community: “[t]he assertion that ‘you’re either with us or against us’
obviates a central aspect of state sovereignty – the right not to be involved –
and recasts the US as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong”.70
But, at the same time, the US has strongly denied that it is attempting to annex
foreign territories or to behave like a colonial power.71 On several occasions, the
American authorities have underlined the necessity of sticking to some of the
basic rules of the international legal order stemming from the principle of sovereignty, mainly the right to self-determination and the respect of territorial integrity
and non-interference:
[ . . . ] United States and other coalition countries have no interest in governing or occupying Iraq. Our intention has always been to stay as long as
necessary, but not a day longer – and to leave behind an Iraqi government
that preserves territorial integrity, uses its resources for the benefit of all
Iraqi people, and poses no threat to its neighbours.72
Rumsfeld also emphasised that the United States was not dividing Iraq up in three
sections, as some reporters have suggested. ‘We are not’, he emphasised: ‘it is a
whole’.73
How to ensure the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq while providing
the appropriate level of self-government? This an issue the United States
confronted in the framing of our Constitution? While our answers have
worked well for us, Iraqis have to find their own answers suited to
Iraq’s unique circumstances.74
However the USA is not prepared for other actors to intervene likewise, Paul
Wolfowitz warning Turkey that the US “can’t any longer have unilateral action
on Turkey’s part”. In the long run: “Turkish military forces should not be
needed in Northern Iraq”,75 . . . “The White House said it has made clear to
69. Richard Haass, “‘Existing Rights, Evolving Responsibilities’, State official explores rights,
responsibilities of nation states”, January 15, 2003, available: ,http://www.uspolicy.be.
70. Michael Byers, “Terror and the Future of International Law”, in K. Booth and T. Dunne (eds.),
Worlds in Collision, (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), p. 119.
71. “President Delivers ‘State of Union’”, 28 January 2003, p. 8, available: , http://www.
whitehouse.gov.; “Powell Says Iraq poses Threat to Peace and Security of All Nations”, He stated
during the Davos Meeting: “We did not seek any special benefits for ourselves. . . [the] transatlantic
community promotes peace, prosperity and democratic values”, 26 January 2003, available:
,http://www.uspolicy.be.; “Cheney Makes Case for War”,; Donald Rumsfeld, “Beyond Nation
Building”, 14 February 2003, available: ,http://www.defenselink.mil.
72. “Foreign Press Center Briefing On Iraqi Interim Authority”, available: ,http://www.
defenselink.mil.
73. DoD Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and G. Franks, May 9, 2003.
74. Town Hall Meeting with Iraqi-American Community, 23 February 2003, available: ,http://
www.defenselink.mil.
75. Except under the control of the coalition, “Wolfowitz Criticizes Turkey for Not Backing U.S. on
Iraq”, 7 May 2003, available: ,http://www.uspolicy.be.
62
B. Delcourt
Iran it would oppose any outside organization’s interference in Iraq as that
country embarks on its road to democracy”.76 Moreover, fighting terrorism in
the eyes of the American administration encompasses a reactivation of security
policies by the state apparatus under a very traditional meaning of the sovereignty principle77: “We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by
[ . . . ] denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by
convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities”.78
Towards a Conditional Sovereignty?
This is not to say that nothing has changed for the collective security system and
the international legal order. The pre-emptive doctrine entails several changes in
the sovereignty-intervention discourse, which are more striking at the legal level.
As pointed out above, the two main referents of sovereignty proposed throughout history have been god and the people. During the classical age, the law of
nature was deemed to regulate different communities. In the modern age,
natural law was dropped in favour of the law of equivalences (the law of
nations) that expressed the idea of sovereign equality of states (and peoples
within states). The reciprocity principle was the corollary of the coexistence
system composed by different sovereign units but based on different cultures,
religions and political systems.79 The UN Charter system is qualified as
‘liberal’ in so far as it organises (for better or for worse) the coexistence
between them without imposing a legitimacy principle (liberal capitalist
regime for instance).80 Coercive policies or measures are justified by threats to
peace and security and decided upon collectively by the Security Council
members. From a theoretical (and very formal) point of view, this sort of procedural mechanism does not endanger the sovereignty principle by the mere
fact that almost all member-states of the UN have freely subscribed to this collective security system.81 These are the legal limits of the sovereignty principle formally recognised by all states including the USA.
With the ‘securitization’ of international politics after September 11 2001, we
have entered into a world in which emergency regulations are increasingly replacing normal rules. The pre-emptive doctrine announces the end of this reciprocity for
76. “White House Warns Against Iranian Interference in Iraq”, 23 April 2003, available: ,http://
www.uspolicy.be.
77. Barbara Delcourt, “De quelques paradoxes liés à l’invocation de l’État et du droit”, in Th.
Christakis, K. Bannelier, O. Corten et B. Delcourt (eds), Le droit international face au terrorisme
(Paris: Pedone, 2002), pp. 203–215.
78. National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, p. 6 (emphasis
added)
79. Robert O. Keohane, “Hobbes’s Dilemma and Institutional Change”, in H.-H. Holm and
G. Sorensen (eds.), Whose World Order? Uneven Globalization and the End of the Cold War
(Boulder: Westview Press, 1995), p. 172; N.J. Rengger, International Relations, Political Theory and
the Problem of Order (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 72–75.
80. Karim Benyekhlef et Guy Lefebvre, “L’internationalisation du droit et l’affirmation de la
souveraineté. Réflexions théoriques et pratiques”, Souveraineté et intégration (Montréal: Thémis,
1993), p. 196.
81. Jean Combacau, “Pas une puissance, une liberté: la souveraineté internationale de l’État”,
Pouvoirs, No 67 (November 1993).
Pre-emptive Action in Iraq
63
the sake of American security and in the name of their special responsibility
concerning world affairs82:
International law is for the most part reciprocal – if you have any respect
for international law, you’ve got to think of just how this might change
the rights and obligations of others. And we might well trust the
United States, but do we trust India or Pakistan or Rwanda or China?
Do we trust Iraq – because they would have a right of pre-emptive
self-defence too? I don’t think that calculation is taking place in the
White House, as if the Bush administration thinks that the US has a
special position in international law, which seems to be a sort of
underlying assumption that they have when they articulate these
claims. Sort of like argument with regard to international Criminal
Court, that the US has special responsibilities and therefore it deserves a
special exemption.83
States are no longer equal as they were (formally) under the traditional
system based on sovereignty. The US and its allies have a duty to translate
their nominal sovereignty into effective governance. But until failing states or
states that harbour terrorist and drug traffickers assume their sovereign
duties, the “world community may need to assume many of the sovereign
responsibilities of a sovereign government”.84 This is precisely the kind of
mission Robert Cooper advocated in his essay in favour of a “New Liberal
Imperialism”.85
Are we going back to an international system governed by the law of nature
instead of the law of nations? It is a quite complex question but “What is
perhaps most striking about the grand strategy outlined by the President is that
it is conceived in terms of moral imperative: ‘responsibility’ and ‘obligation’
figure alongside with ‘opportunity’”.86 It is not certain that pragmatism and
opportunity are consistent with this model of legal thinking.87
While ostensibly a discourse of inclusion and universalism, the American
discourse nonetheless contains its inner limitation.88 Derrida suggests that the
82. “‘Existing Rights, Evolving Responsibilities’, by Ambassador Richard Haass. State official
explores rights, responsibilities of nation states”, op. cit.
83. Michael Byers, Crimes of war project. Iraq and the ‘Bush Doctrine” of Pre-emptive Self-Defence.
Expert Analysis, August 20, 2002, (emphasis added)
84. “‘Existing Rights, Evolving Responsibilities’, by Ambassador Richard Haass. State official
explores rights, responsibilities of nation states”, op. cit., p. 2.
85. Robert Cooper, “The New Liberal Imperialism”, Observer Worldview, April 7, 2002.
86. Edward Rhodes, “Onward Liberal Soldiers? The Crusading Logic of Bush’s Grand Strategy and
What is Wrong with it” op cit. “President Delivers ‘State of Union’”, 28 January 2003, available: ,http://
ww.whitehouse.gov.; “U.S. National Security Agenda: A New Era”, Electronic Journal of the Department of State 7(4), December 2002; Condoleeza Rice, “A Balance of Power that Favors Freedom”, ibid.
87. Olivier Corten, “Les ambiguı̈tés de la référence au droit international comme facteur de légitimation. Portée et signification d’une déformalisation du discours légaliste”, in O. Corten et B. Delcourt
(eds.), Droit, légitimation et politique extérieure. L’Europe et la guerre du Kosovo, op.cit.,
pp. 226 and ff.; See also the notion of “pragmatic solidarism” as developped by Alex J. Bellamy,,
“Humanitarian Intervention and the Three Traditions”, Global Society, Vol. 17, No 1 (2003)
88. Armitage, Richard L., Deputy Secretary of State, “Allies, Friends and Partners on every page:
international cooperation in the national security strategy”, available: ,http://www.whitehouse.gov.
64
B. Delcourt
value of universality is always “linked to the value of exemplarity that inscribes
the universal in the proper body of a singularity, of an idiom or a culture,
whether this singularity be individual, social, national . . . ”.89 In the American discourse, the USA itself is the embodiment of exemplarity. Like some UK discourses
on the Commonwealth, it is marked by a form of moralistic paternalism.90 The
Powell rhetoric is a good example of this trend: “We have the military power
but we also have the economic power, we have political power, we have diplomatic power, we have the power of example. We are using all these elements of
national power not to find nations to invade, but to find nations who need our
help”.91 G.W. Bush is not backward at paternalism: “We are not only in Iraq to
defend our security, we are also showing that we value the lives and the liberty
of the Iraqi people”.92
The neo-conservative ideology inspired by Leo Strauss is perfectly in keeping
with this trend,93 but democrats also shared some of these assumptions, in
particular in making sovereignty conditional94:
“There was always an idealist strain in American Cold War thinking.
Bush’s ‘Axisof Evil’ echoes Ronald Reagan’s ‘Evil Empire’. The Bushites
believe, or appear to believe, that America is a cause, not a nation, with
a mission to convert the rest of the world to the American dream and
the rid the world of terrorists and tyrants. For them, sovereignty is
conditional for other states, but unconditional for the United States
because United States represents ‘good’. Hence the United States can
act unilaterally [ . . . ]. This view was expressed by Assistant Secretary of
State Richard Haass: ‘What you are seeing in this administration is the
emergence of a new principle or body of ideas . . . about what you
might call the limits of sovereignty. Sovereignty entails obligations. One
is not to massacre your own people. Another is not to support terrorism
in any way. If a government fails to meet these obligations, then, it forfeits
some of advantages of sovereignty, including the right to be left alone
inside your own territory. Other governments, including the United
States, gain the right to intervene. In the case of terrorism, this can even
lead to a right of preventive . . .self-defence. You essentially can act in
anticipation, if you have grounds to think it’s a question of when and
not if you’re going to be attacked’”.95
89. Peter Fitzpatrick, “‘Gods would be needed . . . ’: American Empire and the Rule of (International)
Law”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 16 (2003), p. 443; Roxanne Lynn Doty, “Sovereignty and
the nation: constructing the boundaries of national identity”, in T. Biersteker and C. Weber (eds.), State
sovereignty as a social construct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 135.
90. Ibid., p. 136.
91. “Powell: War Showed U.S. Using Power in Pursuit of Principle”, 23 April 2003, p. 2, available:
,http://www.uspolicy.be.
92. “Bush: U.S. Used Might In The name of Peace and Freedom in Iraq”, 24 April 2003, ibid.
93. Alain Frachon et Daniel Vernet, “Le stratège et le philosophe”, Le Monde, 16 avril 2003.
94. Jürgen Habermas La paix perpétuelle. Bicentenaire d’une idée kantienne (Paris: Cerf, 1996),
pp. 55–63; Jean-Marc Ferry, La question de l’État européen (Paris:Gallimard, 2000), p. 117.
95. Mary Kaldor, “American power: from ‘compellance’ to cosmopolitanism?”, op. cit., p. 12. Quoted
from Ikenberry, p. 52; See “Powell Says Iraq poses Threat to Peace and Security of All Nations”, 26
January 2003, p. 4: “We continue to reserve our sovereign right to take military action against Iraq
alone or in coalition of the willing”, available: ,http://www.uspolicy.be.
Pre-emptive Action in Iraq
65
In brief, “It is a vision in which sovereignty becomes more absolute for America
even as it becomes more conditional for countries that challenge Washington’s
standards of internal and external behaviour”.96 Likewise, in his pledge for a
“new liberal imperialism”, Robert Cooper states, “The challenge to the postmodern world is to get used to the idea of double standards. Among ourselves,
we operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security. But when
dealing with more old-fashioned kind of states outside post-modern continent
of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era-force, preemptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still
live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself”.97 But is it that
new? John Ikenberry considers that since the norm of sovereignty has existed,
great powers have willfully transgressed it, particularly within their traditional
spheres of influence. “What is new and provocative in this notion today,
however, is the Bush administration’s inclination to apply in on a global basis,
leaving to itself the authority to determine when sovereignty rights have been forfeited, and doing so on a anticipatory basis”.98
This is perhaps a feature that distinguishes neo-conservatives from cosmopolitans: “Thus the cosmopolitans share the Bushites’ assumption that sovereignty
is conditional; but in their view conditionality applies to all states and, moreover,
the conditions cannot be determined unilaterally but only through a set of
multilateral agreed procedures”.99 ‘Just wars’ in a modern era cannot be
decided unilaterally:
[ . . . ] the just war doctrine can be ‘stood on its head’, if it is realized that to
do so would be the most effective way of converting the desire to do
justice for oneself into the desire to do justice for mankind (which is the
only true justice, objectively speaking) [ . . . ] The need is for action upon
the basis [ . . . ] that the security of mankind demands justice for oneself
be sought only through multilateral, rather than unilateral judgment.100
Conclusion
If procedures and international institutions are not used to regulate international
relations, what should be the limits to the American power? Can we imagine a
redrawing of the sovereignty-intervention boundary that could be legitimated
by an interpretive community and then able to produce a new order for the international system?
The first limit is a factual one: the material impossibility of assuming global
governance activities on a purely unilateral basis.101 Bernard Cronin speaks
96. John G. Ikenberry, “America’s Imperial Ambition”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No 5 (September/
October 2002), p. 44.
97. Robert Cooper, “The New Liberal Imperialism”, op. cit., p. 4.
98. John G. Ikenberry, “America’s Imperial Ambition”, op. cit., p. 53.
99. Mary Kaldor, “American power: from ‘compellance’ to cosmopolitanism?”, op. cit., p. 19.
100. Lynn H. Miller, “The contemporary Significance of the Doctrine of Just War”, World Politics,
Vol. 16, No 2, (January 1964), p. 286.
101. Pierre Hassner, “The United States: the empire of force or the force of empire”, Chaillot Paper no
54 (September 2002), p. 47; “‘Existing Rights, Evolving Responsibilities’, by Ambassador Richard
Haass. State official explores rights, responsibilities of nation states”, op. cit.
66
B. Delcourt
about the “paradox of hegemon”. The hegemon has the means and the power to
engage in unilateral actions for the defence of its interests but, at the same time,
it is compelled to abide, to a greater or lesser extent, by the rules of international
institutions in order to guarantee in the long term the stability of precisely the
system that enables the maintenance of its leadership.102 In this respect,
the attempt to legalise the occupation of Iraq by the UN (resolutions 1483 and
1511), to push ahead with a resolution of the Security Council dealing with the
freezing terrorist assetsis symptomatic of the utility of international institutions
for American policies.103
Second, pre-emptive actions increase negative attitudes and fears all over the
world. Even the most willing states do not share all the views embedded in the
national security strategy document.104 The United States needs more than ever
the help of its partners, allies and friends, if not the EU, NATO, UN or OSCE to
control social, political and economic activities beyond their borders.105 A
global project needs a global mode of governance to regulate anarchy and to
prevent a total collapse of the system.
The third limit is inherent to the basic values American authorities are fighting
for, be they democrat or republican, liberal or conservative. This is part of the soft
power American authorities can rely on to sustain their primacy at the international stage. Most of the critics and concerns raised inside the American
sphere or by pro-American intellectuals refer to the liberal doctrine that inspired
the Fathers of the American Constitution.
The doctrine that power needs restraint, and that overbearing and
unbounded power constitutes a danger both for order and liberty . . . The one great work of political theory produced in the United
States – the Federalist – essays written at the time of the ratification of
the constitution – is a brilliant and relentless demonstration of the perversity failing to provide such checks among human beings . . . in
thought and experience, resistance to universal empire is coeval with
the history of civil liberty . . . Eighteen– century Americans were not
alone in treating universal empire as inconsistent with the preservation
of the international system and of the liberties of states. Montesquieu,
Vattel, Hume, Robertson, Burke, and Gibbon had all considered the
theme, and were as, in Alexander Hamilton’s words, a ‘hideous
project’.106
102. Bernard CRONIN, “The Paradox of Hegemony: America’s Ambiguous Relationship with the
United Nations”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 7, No 1 (2001), pp. 103 –130.
103. Colin Powell denies US policy being unilateralist. Instead, he talks about “cooperative action”,
“US Using its Power Responsibility Powell Says. Interview with U.S. News and World Report”, April
28, 2003, available: ,http://www.uspolicy.be.; see also National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass
destruction, December 2002, pp. 4 and ff. and America’s Role in Nation Building. From Germany to
Iraq (Santa Monica: Rand, 2003).
104. K. Bannelier, Th. Christakis, O. Corten et P. Klein (eds.), L’intervention en Irak et le droit
international (Paris: Pedone, 2004), pp. 107 and ff.
105. Edward Alden, “US rediscovers value of transatlantic link”, Financial Times, June 24 2003;
“President’s Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly” (Fact sheet: U.S. rejoins UNESCO),
September 12, 2003, available: ,http://www.whitehouse.gov.
106. David. C. Henrickson, “Toward Universal Empire”, World Policy Journal, Fall 2002, p. 2; Pierre
Hassner, “The United States: the empire of force or the force of empire”, op. cit., p. 15.
Pre-emptive Action in Iraq
67
In giving publicity to the new strategic concept the US administration has opened
up a public debate and thus contributed to the vitality of the democratic system.
In contrast Vladimir Nikitin, “ . . . underlined the Russian reluctance to
‘doctrinalise’ prevention/pre-emption, with Moscow preferring to use it de
facto without formalising it since formalisation could reduce strategic freedom
of manœuvre”.107 At least, the Bush-Cheney Administration is making a rod for
its own back.
The last question to answer is: do other countries or international organisations
have the capacity to curb this evolution? Or will the internal balance of forces
inside the USA be decisive for the future of an international system based on
the sovereignty principle? This hypothesis certainly goes against another cosmopolitan or liberal assumption,108 as it would mean that the international order
would rest on the American interpretation of the raison d’Etat instead of on
multilateral approaches of collective security.
107. CEPS Web Notes; “Pre-emptive Military Action and the legitimate use of force”, 14 January
2003.
108. David Strang, “Contested sovereignty: the social construction of colonial imperialism”, in
T. Biersteker and C. Weber (Eds.), State sovereignty as a social construct, op. cit., p. 45.