Title page

Title




Critical analysis of regime changes in Iraq 2003: Underlying reasons behind the Iraq War.






By
Roderick John Young (rjy2@waikato.ac.nz)


For
Professor Dov Bing


At
Waikato University


In
Hamilton, New Zealand


Date
29 October 29, 2004


Paper
Strategic Issue in the Middle East

Table of contents

Abstract page 3

Introduction page 4

Chapter one page 6
Analysis Regime Change In Iraq.
· When does a state cross the line
· Genocide, Weapons of mass destruction and terrorism
· No fly zone and regime change.

Chapter two page 8
Weapons of Mass Destructions and Democratizations
· Iraq and al Qaeda.
· North Korea and Pakistan or Iraq nuclear weapons.
· Elimination of terrorism as reason for regime change.
· Promotion of Democracy in Iraq as a reason for war.

Chapter three page12
Oil: dependant countries around the world want stability
· Whichever country controls the Gulf dictates.
· USA oil policy for Gulf.
· Nuclear threat to oil.
· Israel as a target for nuclear threat if Arab nations arm.
· Why nuclear nations unable to blackmail.

Chapter four page18
The Historical framework of international institutions.
· United nations charter on Aggression.
· A Chinese perspective of Gulf war and Iraq war
· Religion has played a major part in the Middle East
· Iraq disregarding international consensus from the 1920’s
· Collective security through the United Nations
· Coming of age of the human race.
· No one will accept to bear the weight of kingship

Chapter five page29
Religion in the region and its systems will play out in the future.
· The Past 5000 years of Monotheistic history.
· A new race of men

Discussion page31
· Compare Iraq war international response to Solomon Islands.
Conclusion page34
References page36
Appendix page38

Abstract

Abstract

This essay will briefly and critically analyze the underlying reasons for the Iraq war. It will be argued that on top of the historical, religious, and judicial frame work, that regime change transcends oil considerations, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) considerations, and American hegemony in the territory because Iraq invading another country (Kuwait). After Iraq was removed from Kuwait in 1991 the control of nuclear exchange in the area followed by utterly crushing a regime that had invades another country. This was started in 2003 by a coalition force of many nations that comes together under the United Nations umbrella of international law; where force is made to serve justice. Religion provides a vocabulary in the Middle East in outlining an historical context for Nations. These include the Jewish Nation of Israel, Christian Centers of interest, and Islamic Countries of varying structures and belief systems and the Baha’i Faith (world headquarters and place of pilgrimage in Haifa and Akka, Israel) that transcends national boundaries. Apart of this analysis introduces concepts from the Bahai faith that sets out the flow of event presently underway and in future will become all the more important to understand and critically analyze.

Introduction

Introduction
It is this authors hope to answer questioned about the Iraq 2003 war and provide an explanation of the background behind the growing international response to the war. In doing literature reviews for this topic is was clear that little research into history of Baha’I has been encouraged in Universities around the world. Even in this essay it has been necessary to give quotes in the original text when it came to Baha ’I material to make the point that material is available. No longer can the academic literature deign explanation that exist and goes beyond knee jerk reactions of the pet interests of the nation state without taking into account a wider look and international considerations predicted long before present structures like the United Nations came into existence. This essay has placed in the appendix a longer history of the area called Iraq to show that contention and strife have been apart of the land and people for years before our present generation has focused western media upon Iraq. Chapter One Analysis for Regime Change In Iraq. Chapter Two is a critical analysis of the gross violations that Iraq has purported against humanity and the moves to sanction the nation with eventual regime change when coalition’s forces were ready. Factors including weapons of mass destruction and democratization for Iraq were not United States number one interest. Chapter Three takes into account Oil, Weapons of Mass destruction and the American hegemony in the Middle East. The analysis focuses on the need for oil and how interest in the area around oil has meant that rogue nations who invade other counties (Iraq invading Kuwait), threaten the economies around the world. The response to disruption of this type leads to a concerted challenge by a line of willing countries to effect regime change guided by United Nations mandates. Chapter Four looked at Religion, which plays important part in the long-term development of a region. The focus on Baha’I here was to provide a span of time in contemporized setting. The happenings in Iraq 2003 have antecedents to the 1920 and this development in the recent history as been monitored by the Baha’I writings. Chapter Five looked at the historical frame work in developing justice systems at the international level by describing briefly the League of Nations and going on then to the United Nations. This is approached from an historical context of Baha’I writings. The Author feels it important to express this body of literature here because it has been largely left out of academic discourse, even thought the complex nature of the world affairs seems to be written about before the actual inceptions of bodies we now take for granted were referring to organs like the United Nations. For that matter it is now important to take a closer look at this writing body.The Author suggests that it is time to look deeper into this body of text to gain insight into the future problems that now face humanity for example nuclear proliferation. It becomes the task of University to encourage students on addressing this task. Universities are the conscience and critic of society. An ever advancing society is to be guided into the future with the assistance of University scholarship.

Chapter one. Analysis for Regime Change In Iraq

A few years or so ago, the "peace movement" shouted that Afghanistan could not even be approached by a UN coalition without risking the server undying enmity of the Muslim world or that the Taliban regime could not be bombed during Ramadan or that a humanitarian disaster graver than ever would occur if Islamic ultra-fanatics were ever confronted in their own lairs. However now we have an imperfect but recovering Afghanistan with elections help recently at a National level, and a population increased of almost two million returned refugees. There were similar critics and cynics lining up and saying, "Hands off Saddam Hussein," These people almost made the same doom-laden predictions. Even thought the line that connects Afghanistan and Iraq is not a straight one the results have been the same. It is hard to ignore the direct connection between al Qaeda and the Taliban regime. Saddam Hussein even denounced the timely removal of the Sunni Muslim-murdering Slobodan Milosevic; he also denounced the removal too of the Shiite-murdering Taliban. It can be seen that with Saddam the state of Iraq has been sponsoring him in his terror campaigns(Hitchens, 2003)[1]!

If the counsel of the peace-protestors had been followed then Kuwait would today be a 19th province of Iraq. Also based on Saddam Hussein own recently produced evidence, he would have acquired nuclear weapons by now. Moreover, Bosnia would now be a trampled and cleansed province and part of Greater Serbia. Kosovo then would have been emptied greatly of most of its inhabitants. The Taliban too would still be in power in Afghanistan. Yet what is missing on the contented air and moral superiority that seems to surrounds those who intone the "peace movement."

There are three well-established reasons in favor what is termed "regime change" in Iraq. The first is the year after year flouting by Saddam Hussein of many known law on genocide and human rights(Bruni, 2004b). This is why the Senate with the urging of Bill Clinton came to pass the Iraq Liberation Act and did it unanimously even before George W. Bush had even been nominated to stand for president. The second is the persistent efforts by Saddam's brutal regime to acquire the weapons of genocide. The use of these was seen in the Iran-Iraq war 1980-88. These actions of gaining WMD were condemned by the United Nations even before George W. Bush was governor of Texas. Then the third is the continuous and systematic involvement by the Iraqi secret police with the international underworld in terror and destabilization. In Iraq prisons and mass graves have been uncovered.

The no-fly zones have been good for the people who live under them. Dr. Barham Salih, is the elected prime minister in one sector of Iraqi Kurdistan. Neither he nor his electorate would have had this right with out protection. The no-fly zones were imposed as a result due to democratic protest in the West and at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. In this part of Iraq, "regime change" was shown too occurred before Hussein was removed. Under the no fly zone there were dozens of newspapers, development of numerous radio and this included TV channels along with satellite dishes even Internet cafes. A total of four female judges had been appointed. Almost half the students in the University of Sulaimaniya are women[2]. A pro al Qaeda group who recently transferred from Afghanistan was then trying to assassinate the Kurdish leadership(Bruni, 2004a).
[1] Hitchens, Christopher January 16, 2003 issue of The Stranger, a Seattle weekly News Paper.
[2] Ibid.

Chapter two Weapons of Mass Destructions and Democratizations

Commentators have cited that reasons for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 can be explained in terms of oil. Fouad Ajami is the Majid Khadduri Professor and Director of Middle East Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and they suggest that “Iraq and al Qaeda are two main tributaries of Arab radicalism.[1]” and go on to say “The men who dominate these two sinister entities cross the border between religious faith and secular politics in a seamless way(Ajami, 2002).” Iraq under the Baathist was motivated by secularism when the Sunni clan who had taken power persecuted the Shia religious class in shrine towns of Najaf and Karbala in late 1970s and he showed no mercy. Also in the name of secularism Saddam had waged the war against the Iranian Revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini(Kainikara, 2003). Then when it came to Desert Storm and the USA army had broken the back Saddam Hussein army did he fall back on Religion and “told his soldiers that "angels of mercy" would come to their rescue[2]“ Saddam was devastated by the loss of his army in 1991 and in the same vein, the satisfaction bin Laden and the terrible deeds of al Qaeda gave way to the old bitter sense being Arab disappointment and that the base he had secured were undone in Afghanistan. America had seen that the sparing of Saddam in 1991 that nourished al Qaeda. 2003 Iraq war was to remove any escalation of events like September 11 2001: the collapse of the twin towers when planes were flown into them.

Michael T. Klare is the Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies (a joint appointment at Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College, Smith College, and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst) states that

“President Bush and his associates have advanced three reasons for going to war with Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein: (1) to eliminate Saddam's WMD arsenals; (2) to diminish the threat of international terrorism; and (3) to promote democracy in Iraq and the surrounding areas.[3]”

Was Iraq the greatest threat to the USA at the time of the 2003 War with Iraq in terms of WMD(G. Klintworth, 2004). No says Klare North Korea and Pakistan(Ashton, 2004), not Iraq were of greater threat(Klare, 2003). Both countries possess bigger arsenals, North Korea is suspected of having a dozen nuclear weapons and is suspected of manufacturing chemical weapons(Kerr, 2003). North Korea is suspected of possessing plutonium enough to produce one or two nuclear weapons and has chemical weapons and a large array of ballistic missiles. Iraq is know not to have nuclear weapons and was years away from developing them. Any Chemical and biological weapons from the 1991 war and a dozen or so scud type missiles are less than credible after 14 years. Equally important is intention. Of these countries how likely they to be use these weapons.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has publicly stated that he was prepared to employ nuclear weapons against India last year when New Delhi massed its forces on Pakistan's border and threatened to attack unless Pakistan curbed the activities of Islamic militants in Kashmir[4].

This is not to say that Pakistan would use nuclear weapons on the USA however(Ashton, 2004).

Just as worrisome is the fact that the North Koreans(Duncan, 2003) have declared that they would consider any move by the United States and the U.N. to impose economic sanctions on North Korea as punishment for its pursuit of nuclear weapons as an act of war, to which they would respond accordingly, turning the United States into a "sea of fire."[5]

This does not mean they will use nuclear weapons but may use WMD to stave off defeat. Like wise it would be at time of invasion of Iraq into Baghdad that WMD would be most likely used. Protecting USA from attack with WMD Iraq would be third in the list.

Elimination of terrorism was suggested as a reason for war with Iraq 2003. But we know from al Qaeda and other such organizations that the objective of Islamic extremists like these is to overthrow any government what so ever in the Islamic world that does not stick to a fundamentalist version of Islam thus replacing it with one that does. The Baathist regime in Iraq is unable to qualify as such a regime and so under A1 Qaeda doctrine the Baathist regime must be swept away and including equally deficient governments in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Coalition supported secular governments will attract the wrath of Islamic extremists as current news items portray. In addressing this matter here it is necessary to remember the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. For most Arab Muslims regardless of their views of Saddam Hussein they see the United States is a hypocritical power and see it tolerate the use of state terror by Israel, even support it, against the Palestinians while making war against Iraq and Baghdad for the same sort of behavior.

Promotion of Democracy in Iraq as a reason for war is interesting when considering the background of many of the top leaders in the current administration including particularly Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney who were completely happy to embrace dictator Saddarn Hussein in the 1980s at the time when Iraq was the enemy of our enemy that being Iran, and thus considered our de facto friend. Under the so-called tilt toward Iraq, the Ronald Reagan- George Bush administration decided to assist Iraq with its war against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. As part of this policy, Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries whom it considered support terrorism, thus permitting billions of dollars' worth of agricultural credits and forms of assistant to get to Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad to give this news and met with Hussein in December 1983 being a special representative of President Reagan. At the same time as the Department of Defense was provided Iraq with secret satellite data to pinpoint Iranian military positions. This information was provided to Saddam knowing by the U.S. leaders and senior State Department official around November 1, 1983 that the Iraqis was using chemical weapons against its neighbor Iranians "almost daily," Dick Cheney, took over as Secretary of Defense in 1989, and continued the practice the supplying to Iraq secret intelligence data. Never once did Rurnsfeld or Cheney speak out against Iraqi Chemical Weapons or suggest the United States stop its support of the dictatorship of Hussein during this period. No reason exists that the current leadership are principled to object to dictatorial rule in Iraq. Only when Saddam is threatening USA oil, instead of US enemies do they care about his tyrannical behavior says Kiare. USA has relationships with other dictatorships in the area from the former Soviet empire; Heydar
Aliyev in Azerbaijan, Nursultan Nazarbaev of Kazakhstan, and Islam Karimov Aliyev in Azerbaijan. These nations are slightly less odious than Saddam Hussein and these tyrants have been welcomed to the White House and showered with support and aid from America. Neither are two close allies of the US, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia democratic so this is hard to say Iraq was a prime candidate solely for democratization.
[1] Ajami, Fouad. TWO FACES, ONE TERROR The Wall Street Journal on November 16, 2002. (Sifry. 2003. p.378)
[2] Ibid.
[3] Klare, Micheal T. (2003) DECIPHERING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S MOTIVES January 16, 2003 issue of Foreign Policy in Focus.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.

Chapter three Oil: dependant countries around the world want stability

If we critically analyze Oil in the region we see that United States relies on 55 percent of its oil being imported, and this is expected to rise to 65 percent by 2020 and grow their after. This dependency on oil is the "Achilles heel" for American power and unless Persian Gulf oil is be kept under American control then the ability for America to remain the dominant world power this would be put into question. This concern around pins the reasons given to invade Iraq and is supported also by the pivotal role played by the Persian Gulf that supplies oil to the rest of the world. Whichever country controls the Gulf will automatically maintains a stranglehold on the global economy. It is in the interests of the Bush administration for that to be the United States: no one else. And the third is anxiety about supplies of future availability of oil. The United States is starting to become increasingly dependent on Saudi Arabia for supply of imported petroleum, and Washington wants desperately to find an alternative. The only country in the world that has large enough reserves to fully compensate for the demise of Saudi Arabia is Iraq.

Ever since World War II, American policymakers acknowledged the United States someday would become dependent on Middle Eastern petroleum, thus American policy is to ensure that the United States will always have unrestrained access into the Persian Gulf ‘oil. Initially the United States relied on Great Britain for her to protect American access to the Persian Gulf, but Britain pulled out of the area in 1971 and so the U.S. decided to chose the Shah of Iran for this protection. However in 1979 this protection was lost when the Shah was overthrown due to Islamic militants loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini. The response from Washington was to assume responsibility by itself to protect the oil flow. This became known as the Carter Doctrine of January 23, 1980 and states that unrestricted access to the Gulf is of vital interest to the United States and that, to protect these interests from then on the United States will employ the strategy of "any means necessary, including military force."

In 1987, during the Iran-Iraq War, this principle was first employed when Iranian gunboats fired on Kuwaiti oil tankers. The US response was to have the U.S. Navy escorting Kuwaiti tankers in the Gulf. Following this was August 1990, and Iraq invaded Kuwait. This posed a serious implied threat to Saudi Arabia. Then President Bush the elder took on the threat by driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait It was known as Operation Desert Storm and it left Hussein in power for the "containment" of Iraq which entailing an air and sea blockade.

Vice President Dick Cheney on August 26, 2002, in his important speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, "Armed with these weapons of terror and a seat at the top of 10% of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.[1]"

To make the point of this, it is useful to compare Cheney's his comments 12 years earlier when following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait he said before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Iraq controlled 10% of the world's reserves prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Once Saddam Hussein took Kuwait, he doubled that to approximately 20% of the world's known oil reserves.... Once he acquired Kuwait and deployed an army as large as the one he possesses [on the border of Saudi Arabia], he was clearly in a position to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy, and that gave him a stranglehold on our economy and on that of most of the other nations of the world as well[2].

This gives United States of America extraordinary leverage over world affairs and explains why Japan, Britain, France, and Germany (who are even more dependent on Persian Gulf oil) will defer to America on major international issues including Iraq. We see this with France and Germany even when they disagree with the United States(G. K. Jacobs, 2002). Other nations are lining up in the dependence on Persian Gulf oil that includes China, India and the European Union. America is developing superior technology (Dikkenberg, 2004) to maintain its position as dominant player in the Middle East and will continue to have counties look to it in the future(B. B. H. R. Cooper, 2004). Iraq is the only country with sufficient reserves to balance Saudi Arabia (112 billion barrels in proven reserves with 200-300 billion barrels in potential reserves). By occupying Iraq and protecting its government the United States can solve its long-term oil-dependency at least for a decade or more(K. Jacobs, 2004). This according to Klare is a major consideration in the administration's decision-making about Iraq.

From 1995 to 2001, Kenneth M. Pollack served as director for Gulf affairs at the National Security Council, where he was the principal working-level official responsible for implementation of U.S. policy toward Iraq. Prior to his time in the Clinton administration, he spent seven years as a Persian Gulf military analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency. He is currently the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and director of national security studies for the Council on Foreign Relations, (Sifry 2003:76)

Although it is unwise to predict what Saddam Hussein will not do, it does seem unlikely that he would employ nuclear weapons as soon as he got them--to wipe out Tel Aviv, for example. Saddam generally uses violence instrumentally, rather than gratuitously--with the important exception being cases of revenge. Again, based on what we know of his thinking, he would likely understand that a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv would invite his own incineration. Some Israeli analysts have noted that the Iraqi regime has staged large-scale evacuations of Baghdad and that some Iraqi military officers have talked as if they believed they could survive a nuclear retaliation from Israel[3].

Lesser acts of aggression if Saddam had nuclear weapons would threaten United States oil supplies as Iraq's geographic location is at the head of Persian Gulf and would allow him to threaten a number of targets of great importance to the United States(Pollack, 2002). This analysis takes into account the need to maintain the asymmetrical power imbalance of Israel in the area with its nuclear capability (three submarines with cruse missiles and nuclear warheads)(Duncan, 2003). Aggressive nations surrounding Israel, who’s words so far have exceeded their deeds, include the former Iraq who was working on nuclear weapons. With Iraq's al-Hussein missiles they can reach all of Israel, Jordan, and Syria; northeastern Saudi Arabia, this includes Riyadh, Dhahran, as well as virtually all of the Saudi oil fields. Included also is western Iran, Tehran and the Iranian oil fields in Khuzestan as well as eastern Turkey. The Saudi oil fields equally are a particularly worrisome target. With a single well-placed nuclear weapon (several less well targeted nuclear weapons) this could destroy 75 to 95 percent of all Saudi oil production. It would take decades to rebuild and the radiation levels of this work would make some of the work very expensive in time and equipment. At present, Saudi Arabia supplies 15 percent of global oil production compared to Iraq and Kuwait which together account for another 7 percent of total oil production. A nuclear blast would result in instantaneous loss of around 15 to 22 percent of global oil production. In comparison, the 1973 oil embargo withdrew only 2.75 percent from the market of global oil production and the Iranian revolution withdrew 5.68 percent. Reductions like this would trigger a recession to levels like the 1930 crash however because the world is now so dependent on oil for transportation of food and maintaining water and power supplies the result could be far worse. A nuclear-armed Iraq would have posed terrible choices for the United States.

We could not rule out the possibility that he would decide to choose the time and place of own demise by ordering a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv so that he could go down in history as the Arab leader who finally obliterated the state of Israel. Saddam's former Mukhabbarat chief, Wafiq al-Samarra'i, told PBS's Frontline,

"Perhaps now, I'm seriously considering that Saddam might use this weapon when he's about to die. Perhaps he will use it before he dies. And perhaps he would say to himself that he will be immortalized in history textbooks." Just because this makes little sense to a Westerner does not mean it would not make perfect sense to "the leader of the days of Arab glory.[4]"

The administration and its supporters could not see containment able to prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons someday. The conclusion was that only the conquest and permanent occupation within Iraq could guarantee that. The difference in the United States trying to contain a nuclear Iraq and United States containing the Soviet Union is that the blackmailer and the target state will both have nuclear weapons, the blackmailer's threat is thus an empty one because the blackmailer cannot even carry out the threat without triggering ultimately his own destruction. Again this logic explains why the Soviet Union although having a vast nuclear arsenal over much of the Cold War, could never blackmail the United States (or its allies) and did not even try. Of course the real nightmare scenario would have come when Saddam would give nuclear weapons secretly to say al Qaeda or some other terrorist group. These groups like al Qaeda would almost certainly try in using those weapons against Israel or the United States (look as September 11 2001) and so these countries have a very powerful incentive to take all reasonable measures and keep these weapons out of their hands.
[1] Ibid.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Pollack, Kenneth M. (2002) The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading IraqI New York: Random House.
[4] Ibid.

Chapter four The Historical frame work of international institutions.

In the last chapter the requirement from fuel oil and nuclear weapons was discussed and how the international order is maintained to keep a constant supply to the world. In this chapter the discussion looks at the judicial frame work that the world in entering.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter states

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat of or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence or any state or in any other matter inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Aggression adopted in United Nations General Assemble Resolution 3314 of December 1974:

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political integrity or political independence or another State…(and)first use of armed force by a State… shall constitute proma facie evidence of ‘an act of aggression’

However, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter declares:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member or the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Most governments take the view Article 51 means the right of self-defense. This is contingent on a prior armed attack and without this it would be illegal. Then there is the view that anticipatory self-defense – a pre-emptive strike – where the UN Security Council rails to act or where danger is imminent or there is large-scale aggression threatened.(Dr. Gary Klintworth, 2002). The USA used this strike in Sudan and Afghanistan under the Clinton Administration with cruise missile attacks. These seem to be confined to ‘rogue’ states like the Axis of Evil (Iran, North Korea and the then Iraq). These strikes would not be against “peers” like China, India or the residual nuclear threat from Russia.(G. K. Jacobs, 2002)

When Iraq was against the United Nations with a track record for invasion of other countries then Iraq posed two much of a threat. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 of November 2002 found Iraq to be in ‘material Breach’ of its obligations to show that it had disarmed itself of WMD(Dr Gary Klintworth, 2003). It was warned of ‘the serious consequencees and with almost 20 UN security Council resolutions that had been deliberated upon, argued over, and finally passed in the preceding decade the Peace keeping force of the UN enforced the resolutions.(Dr Gary Klintworth, 2003).

According to the Chinese every thing after the Iraq invasion of Kuwait was about utterly crushing the regime that lead to the invasion. It was seen that the 1991 Gulf war was the breaking of the ribs of Iraq, the sanctions was broke the teeth of the Iraq military and the Weapons inspectors disrupted the Iraq rearmament so that the UN force could ready to regime change by tying the hands and feet of Iraq until 2003 when 30 nations worked together to exact regime change(Zhu, 2003).

As religion has played a major part in the Middle East it is only right to map out a future that is also instrumental on understanding religion. The quote below is provided to give a context to the Baha’i Faith from the vantage point of 1920 and from there develop the legal frame work that brings us up to the present day(Effendi, 1974).

"Palestine," is the testimony of Prof. Norman Bentwitch, a former Attorney-General of the Palestine Government, "may indeed be now regarded as the land not of three but of four Faiths, because the Baha'i creed, which has its center of faith and pilgrimage in Akka and Haifa, is attaining to the character of a world religion. So far as its influence goes in the land, it is a factor making for international and inter-religious understanding." "In 1920," is the declaration made in his testament by the distinguished Swiss scientist and psychiatrist, Dr. Auguste Forel, "I learned at Karlsruhe of the supraconfessional world religion of the Baha'is, founded in the Orient seventy years ago by a Persian, Baha'u'llah. This is the real religion of `Social Welfare' without dogmas or priests, binding together all men of this small terrestrial globe of ours. I have become a Baha'i. May this religion live and prosper for the good of humanity! This is my most ardent desire.[1]"

This document was written around the time 1917 Balfour Declaration, 1919 British army occupies Baghdad from Turkey, 1920 Great Britain Assigned mandate for Iraq. Iraqi nationalist revolt and the formation of the League of Nations. After 4 years however the Iraq Government let Shi’it take over the old residence of Baha’u’llah and appeals where made to seek justice.

These efforts would not appear to correspond fully to the engagements resulting from the British Government’s declaration, which was approved by the Council on September 27, 1924, and renewed by the British Government in 1926, whereby the Treaty of Alliance between the British Government and ‘Iráq ‘was to insure the complete observance and execution in ‘Iráq of the principles which the acceptance of the mandate was intended to secure[2].

It continues to show the League of Nations outlining international co-ordination between nations(Effendi, 1979).

This grave censure pronounced by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations on the administration of justice and the general conduct of affairs in ‘Iráq, as well as the association of the humiliation afflicting Bahá’u’lláh’s sacred dwelling-place with the obligations implied in the Treaty of Alliance binding the Governments of Great Britain and ‘Iráq, not only proclaim to the world the enhanced prestige of that hallowed and consecrated spot, but testify as well to the high sense of integrity that animates the members of the League’s honored Commission in the discharge of their public duties[3].

And from the Guardian of the Baha’I faith after gaining the necessary instructions we see similar imploring of the Iraq Government to adopt international instructions. This is reminiscent of what happened with the United nations with the same country 80 years latter.

Dearly-beloved co-workers! Much has been achieved thus far in the course of the progress of this complicated, delicate and highly significant issue. The Bahá’í world is eagerly expectant, and fervently prays, that the Almighty may graciously assist the Government chiefly responsible for the well-being of ‘Iráq to take “without delay” such steps as will insure the execution of the considered judgment of the representatives of the Sovereign States, members of the Council, and signatories of the Covenant, of the League of Nations[4].

This next passage covers the history of the League of Nations that had no peace keeping capability, through the development of the atomic bomb then onto the formation of the United nations and then on to the action of the United nations in the 1991 Gulf war(Universal-House-of-Justice, 2001).

Primarily, this new birth of hope had resulted, as Shoghi Effendi had foreseen, from the "fiery ordeal" that had at last succeeded in "implanting that sense of responsibility" which leaders earlier in the century had sought to avoid. To this new awareness had been added the effects of the fear induced by the invention and use of atomic weapons, a reaction calling to mind for Bahá’ís the Master’s prescient statements in North America that ultimately peace would come because the nations would be driven to accept it. The Montreal Daily Star had quoted Him as saying: "It [peace] will be universal in the twentieth century. All nations will be forced into it." The years immediately following 1945 witnessed advances in framing a new social order that went far beyond the brightest hopes of earlier decades.
Most important of all was the willingness of national governments to create a new system of international order, and to endow it with the peacekeeping authority so tragically denied to the defunct League. Meeting in San Francisco in April 1945—in the state where ‘Abdu’l-Bahá had prophetically declared, "May the first flag of international peace be upraised in this state"—delegates of fifty nations adopted the Charter of the United Nations Organization, the name proposed for it by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Ratification by the required number of member nations followed that October, and the first General Assembly of the new organization convened on 10 January 1946, in London. In October 1949, the cornerstone of the United Nations’ permanent seat was laid in New York City, hailed by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá thirty-seven years earlier as the "City of the Covenant". During His visit there He had predicted: "There is no doubt that … the banner of international agreement will be unfurled here to spread onward and outward among all the nations of the world."
Significantly, it was also on the initiative of a political leader of one of the Western hemisphere nations which had been addressed by Bahá’u’lláh, that His summons to collective security—first reflected in the nominal sanctions voted by the League of Nations against Fascist aggression in Ethiopia—was at long last given practical effect. In November 1956, Lester Bowles Pearson, then External Affairs Minister and later Prime Minister of Canada, secured the creation by the United Nations of its first international peacekeeping force, an achievement which won its author the Nobel Prize for Peace. The full nature of the authority contained in such a mandate would steadily emerge as a major feature of international relations during the second half of the century. Beginning with the policing of agreements worked out between hostile states, the principle of collective action in defense of peace gradually took on the form of military interventions such as that of the Gulf War, in which compliance with Security Council resolutions was imposed by force on aggressor factions and states[5].

The question is asked…is true that Bahá’ís are not pacifists since we uphold the use of force in the service of Justice and upholding law(The-Universal-House-of-Justice, 1985).

But we do not believe that war is ever necessary and its abolition is one of the essential purposes and brightest promises of Bahá’u’lláh’s revelation. His specific command to the kings of the earth is: “Should any one among you take up arms against another, rise ye all against him, for this is naught but manifest justice.” (Tablet to Queen Victoria, “The Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh”, p. 13) The beloved Guardian has explained that the unity of mankind implies the establishment of a world commonwealth, a world federal system, “...liberated from the curse of war and its miseries in which Force is made the servant of Justice...” whose world executive “backed by an international Force,...will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth.” This is obviously not war but the maintenance of law and order on a world scale. Warfare is the ultimate tragedy of disunity among nations where no international authority exists powerful enough to restrain them from pursuing their own limited interests. Bahá’ís therefore ask to serve their countries in non-combatant ways during such fighting; they will doubtless serve in such an international Force as Bahá’u’lláh envisions, whenever it comes into being.
(11 September 1984 to an individual believer)[6]

The coming of age of humanity was set out in the Most Holy Book, The Kitab-i-Aqdas written in 1873 and published in 1992 in English.

O members of parliaments throughout the world! Select ye a single language for the use of all on earth, and adopt ye likewise a common script. God, verily, maketh plain for you that which shall profit you and enable you to be independent of others. He, of a truth, is the Most Bountiful, the All-Knowing, the All-Informed. This will be the cause of unity, could ye but comprehend it, and the greatest instrument for promoting harmony and civilization, would that ye might understand! We have appointed two signs for the coming of age of the human race: the first, which is the most firm foundation, We have set down in other of Our Tablets, while the second hath been revealed in this wondrous Book[7].

It states that the two signs of the coming of ages was the adoption of an international Auxiliary language and secondly a Divine Philosophy that will be marked by the radical transmutation of the elements(Baha'u'llah, 1992).

The first sign of the coming of age of humanity referred to in the Writings of Baha'u'llah is the emergence of a science which is described as that "divine philosophy" which will include the discovery of a radical approach to the transmutation of elements. This is an indication of the splendors of the future stupendous expansion of knowledge[8].

In the case of radical transmutation of the elements we see this in the science of nuclear and genetics. In the case of the international auxiliary language the use of computers and the binary code, (0,1) in the use of computers and their connections via the telephone lines that links nations and people together in a way that is the starting of the learning a language that lets all people of the world communicate together regardless of where they are from or their mother tongue.

Concerning the "second" sign which Baha'u'llah indicates to have been revealed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Shoghi Effendi states that Baha'u'llah, "...in His Most Holy Book, has enjoined the selection of a single language and the adoption of a common script for all on earth to use, an injunction which, when carried out, would, as He Himself affirms in that Book, be one of the signs of the `coming of age of the human race'"[9]

These elements coming together thus required a new state of mind, divine philosophy, for looking at world order, a new world order, both in the Middle East and for the world as a whole, which transcends nation states sovereignty, guards human rights and covers the underlying control of nuclear exchange prevention: where the prescription is to utterly crushing a regime that invades another country and do this by a coalition force of many nations that comes together under the United Nations umbrella of international law so force is made to serve justice(B. B. H. r. Cooper, 2004).

Further insight into this process of mankind’s coming of age and proceeding to maturity is provided by the following statement of Bahá’u’lláh:
One of the signs of the maturity of the world is that no one will accept to bear the weight of kingship. Kingship will remain with none willing to bear alone its weight. That day will be the day whereon wisdom will be manifested among mankind.
The coming of age of the human race has been associated by Shoghi Effendi with the unification of the whole of mankind, the establishment of a world commonwealth, and an unprecedented stimulus to “the intellectual, the moral and spiritual life of the entire human race[10]“.
[1] Shoghi Effendi (1979 2nd Ed) God Passes By US Bahá’í Publishing Trust p. 375

[2] Shoghi Effendi (1974 ed) Baha’I Administration US Bahá’í Publishing Trust p.176
[3] Ibid. p. 178
[4] Ibid p.179
[5] [5] Universal House of Justice (2001) The Century of Light Haifa, Israel: Baha’I World Centre.pp.71-72
[6] Universal House of Justice (1985) Peace Compiled by the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, Bahá’í World Centre, August 1985
[7] Baha’u’llah (1992 Edition) Kitab-i-AqdasI Haifa, Israel:Universal House of Justice p.88
[8] Ibid. p.250
[9] Ibid. p.251
[10] Ibid. p.251

Chapter five Religion in the region and its systems will play out in the future.

This chapter is about religion and how in 1873, before Iraq or Israel was even nations, the instructions were laid out as to dealing with two nations that arose and posed a threat to the world stability. The hostility towards Israel as seen in the brief history has been thousands of years old and has predated the advent of Islam (see appendix for chronology of the History of Iraq). Also both Islam and Judaism have sought shelter in Mosques and synagogues when Christian crusaders have come into Jerusalem with all present killed at the hands of the crusaders who hold the Ten Commandments as part of being Christian.

At the heart of this system was what Baha'u'llah termed a "new Covenant" between God and humankind. The distinguishing feature of humanity's coming of age is that, for the first time in its history, the entire human race is consciously involved, however dimly, in the awareness of its own oneness and of the earth as a single homeland. This awakening opens the way to a new relationship between God and humankind. As the peoples of the world embrace the spiritual authority inherent in the guidance of the Revelation of God for this age, Baha'u'llah said, they will find in themselves a moral empowerment which human effort alone has proven incapable of generating. "A new race of men"(Baha'i-Interanational-Community, 1992)[1]


The start of the Adamic cycle is the start of the Monotheistic tradition and closed of the Adamic cycle happens with The Bab in 1844 (so state Bahais) and include all the great religions like Jewish, Buddha, Krishna, Zoaster, Christian, Muslim. This was a cycle of prophecy that stretched 5000 years and told of the promised days to come where peace on earth would reign. The cycle of fulfillment from 1844 is a cycle that will have many underlying cycles but will be know as a cycle that lasts for 500,000 years. Under the name of Baha this cycle will usher in the lesser peach, which is a political unity, and then a spiritual peace known as the Most Great Peace where the hearts of the people of the world will accept the lesser peace and become radiant to unity (Kotahatanga is the Maaori word for it).

Nor was the strength of Western societies limited to scientific and technological advances. As the twentieth century opened, Western civilization was reaping the fruits of a philosophical culture that was rapidly liberating the energies of its populations, and whose influence would soon produce a revolutionary impact throughout the entire world. It was a culture which nurtured constitutional government, prized the rule of law and respect for the rights of all of society's members, and held up to the eyes of all it reached a vision of a coming age of social justice. If the boasts of liberty and equality that inflated patriotic rhetoric in Western lands were a far cry from conditions actually prevailing, Westerners could justly celebrate the advances toward those ideals that had been accomplished in the nineteenth century[2].

Every Geographically isolated people have not been deprived of the guidance of God’s word and the culture and traditions of people around the world mirror forth this unity in the systems and processes of the culture. Religion is important when addressing the Middle East and technology has raised the possibility of radical transmutations of the elements.

Apart from the soul's recognition of the Manifestation of God, nothing awakens so great a sense of confidence and vitality in human consciousness--both individual and collective--as does the force of moral certitude. In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, laws that are basic to both personal and community life have been reformulated in the context of a society that embraces the whole range of human diversity. New laws and concepts address the further needs of a human race that is entering on its collective coming of age. "O peoples of the earth!", is Baha'u'llah's appeal, "Cast away that which ye possess, and, on the wings of detachment, soar beyond all created things. Thus biddeth you the Lord of creation, the movement of Whose Pen hath revolutionized the soul of mankind."[3]

[1] Bahá’í International Community (1992) Baha'u'llah, Pages 26-28
[2] Universal House of Justice (2001) The Century of Light Haifa, Israel: Baha’I World Centre. p.5
[3] Ibid. p.140

Discussion

The use of external personal, professionally trained, from the armed forces of many countries, using the logistic training, the discipline that is demanded from armed forces, allowed the coalition force to create a state of peace between Iraq and Kuwait. This same force was used 13 years latter in 2003 to enter Iraq again and to pre-empt further aggression from a regime, Baathist, who were not complying fully with the Untied Nations. The country was restored to a democracy. The insurgent groups are presently being brought to justice and Iraq is getting on with democratic elections. The author has just finished reading an unpublished paper on Solomon Islands and how the on 4th July 2003, the Governor General of Solomon Islands then, Sir John Ini Lapli, wrote to the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard requesting Australian Military Intervention in the country(Me'Esa, Freddy 2004). Over 300 police officers from all participating countries, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands, PNG, Kiribati and Vanuatu. Military personal Aus. 901, NZ. 215, Fiji. 120, PNG. 81, Tonga. 33 and other countries join in later with their military personnel. Total military personnel 1350. Equipment used Maritime-Aus. 1 Fremantle class patrol boat, 1 mine hunter coastal, 1 heavy landing craft, Air- 2 RAAF Caribou c4 aircraft, 4 Iroquois UHIH helicopters 171 RAAF, 4 UHIH Iroquois helicopter RNZAF,*In 2004, AUS has donated over 5 police high powered motor boats used in the police posts. Cost NZ and Aus. have contributed to the national budget for 2004 over SBD $200 million, Aus. has placed 48 personnel administrators in key agencies; 16 in Finance, 12 in justice sector, 19 in prison and one in Ministry of planning. *RAMSI operation costs and bilateral donations not included. Results Collected 3700 firearms arrested more than 340 militants plus their leaders and police officers taking side in their ethnic militant groups, laid over 600 charges.*The maritime and air elements patrolled the Solomon waters. This is another example of what Baha’u’llah wrote about and where peacekeepers are sent to impose a peace over two or more parties that would other wise resort to war, killing and arson. Iraq was a global example of this happening and Solomon Islands was a regional happening. This process is what guards the peace in New Zealand where police and the courts maintain the rule of law, armed defenders are called with the Army as back up if police are unable to help. In the case of external aggression the notions of coalitions of nations is following what Baha’ullah said 150 years ago “Should any one among you take up arms against another, rise ye all against him, for this is naught but manifest justice.” (Tablet to Queen Victoria, “The Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh”, p. 13)[1] “...liberated from the curse of war and its miseries in which Force is made the servant of Justice...” “backed by an international Force,...will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth.” This is obviously not war but the maintenance of law and order on a world scale. Warfare is the ultimate tragedy of disunity among nations where no international authority exists powerful enough to restrain them from pursuing their own limited interests.[2] These examples have shown on the local, regional and now the national level how force is made to serve justice, how war is prevented, and how future threats will be treated. As technology give up the radical transmutation of the elements humanity is challenge with the adoption of a single language in the world. This coming of age of humanity is assisted by the prescription of Baha’u’llah. http://mesopotamia5000bc-2005.blogspot.com/
[1] Universal House of Justice (1985) Peace Compiled by the Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, Bahá’í World Centre, August 1985
[2] Ibid.

Conclusion

Religion provides a vocabulary in the Middle East in outlining an historical context that include the Jewish Nation of Israel, Christian centers of interest, Islamic Countries of varying structures and belief systems as well as the Baha’i Faith and all within one region with its’ world headquarters and place of pilgrimage in Haifa and Akka, Israel adds a new dimension of greater interest in local wars in the area between nations like Israel and Jordon, Syria and Egypt show an escalation from 1947 onwards towards nuclear exchange capabilities that is just intolerable from the rest of the worlds perspective. On top of the historical, religious, and judicial framework, there comes the critical analysis of regime changes in Iraq 2003 of this essay. Regime change as a movement and framework resulted from Iraq invading another country (Kuwait) and although important regime change that transcends oil considerations, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) considerations, and American hegemony in the territory of regional infighting. A point of view held by the author of this paper that the coming of age of humanity happens with the radical transmutation of the elements (nuclear, genetic, language and computer). These elements came together and required a new state of mind for looking at world order, a new world order in the Middle East and for the world for that matter, which transcends nation states sovereignty and covers the underlying control of nuclear exchange prevention: where the prescription is to utterly crushing a regime that invades another country and to do it by a coalition force of many nations that comes together under the United Nations umbrella of international law and where force is made to serve justice. This essay is briefly and critically analyzes of the underlying reasons for the Iraq war in a context that are set out above. The conclusion set the stage for future coalition activities to maintain peace and security in the area of Iraq and around the world: under the same rules of engagement outlined in the framework.

References.

Ajami, F. (2002). Two Faces, One Terror. The Wall Street Journal.
Ashton, W. (2004). Myanmar-Playing the nuclear card? Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 30(2), 12-15.
Baha'i-Interanational-Community. (1992). Baha'u'llah.
Baha'u'llah. (1992). Kitab-i-Aqdas. Haifa: Universal House of Justice.
Bruni, J. (2004a). Game over. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 30(5), v.46.
Bruni, J. (2004b). A tale of two dictators. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 30(2), v.50-51.
Cooper, B. B. H. R. (2004). Land warfare in five dimensions. Final. The Prosecution of war. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 30(3), v.38-40.
Cooper, B. B. H. r. (2004). Soldiers are not Policemen. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 30(6), v.27.
Dikkenberg, J. (2004). The balanced fleet in asymetric warfare. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 30(2), v.42-42.
Duncan, A. (2003). Nuclear developments 2003. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 29(9), v.42-43.
Effendi, S. (1974). Bahai Administration: US Baha'i Publishing trust.
Effendi, S. (1979). God Passes By: Baha'i Publishing trust.
Hitchens, C. (2003). The Starnger.
Jacobs, G. K. (2002). US Preemptive doctrine not so new. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 28(9), v.36.
Jacobs, K. (2004). Iraq:Finding an exit strategy. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 30(1), v.44-45.
Kainikara, S. (2003). India-New Strategies and Old Paradigms. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 29(3), v.44-46.
Kerr, J. (2003). Editorial. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 29(5), v.5.
Klare, M. T. (2003). Deciphering the Bush administration's motives. Foreign Policy in Focus.
Klintworth, D. G. (2002). When it's legitimate to strike. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 28(8), v.42-43.
Klintworth, D. G. (2003). Iraq, the UN and international law. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 29(8), v.34-35.
Klintworth, G. (2004). Good intelligence matters. Asia-Pacific defence reporter, 30(3), v.10-12.
Sifry, Micah L. and Cerf, Christopher. (Eds.) (2003) The Iraq War Reader. History, documents, Opinions. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Pollack, K. M. (2002). The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invating Iraq. New York: Random House.
The-Universal-House-of-Justice. (1985). Peace. Haifa: Bahai World Center.
Universal-House-of-Justice. (2001). The Century of Light. Haifa, Israel.: Bahai World Centre.
Zhu, Z. (2003). The Failure of the Iraqi Army. Jen min wen hsüeh, 2003(9), v.117-123.