Case 6-1: The Ethics of the Persian Gulf War

Introduction There was a major dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, which facilitated war between the two countries. Iraq was more powerful and wanted to take control over Kuwait in order to exploit the oil revenue generated from the country. This would help the country in covering the large public debt that had frustrated economic performance of the country. However, the international community led by the United States attacked Iraq in efforts to liberate Kuwait. They succeeded but the move was unethical because of the application of excessive force and destruction of public infrastructure in Iraq. It is the duty of international community to facilitate peaceful coexistence among people of different nations but diplomatic methods to settle disputes should be used and not military expeditions. This essay analyzes Iraq-Kuwait case using the just war theory. Facts of the Case The case presents major facts. First, there was a major dispute between Iraq and her neighboring country Kuwait. This dispute was mainly based on economic matters in which Iraq wanted to forfeit the $ 10 billion debt to Kuwait and expand her oil reservoirs. Another fact in the case is that Iraq had a powerful military force in the Middle East region and Saddam Hussein wanted to take advantage of this to attack Kuwait. It is a fact that international community had attempted to use peaceful methods to settle the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait but Saddam Hussein would not be changed on his plans to attack Kuwait through the military. It is a fact that there was need to liberate Kuwait from Iraq because she did not have the power to defend her citizens against the powerful Iraq. Ethical Issues in the Case Several ethical issues arise in the case. First, it was unethical for Iraq to direct all her misfortunes to the neighboring country Kuwait (Amstutz, 2013, p. 114). Iraq was suffering from poor economic performance and an outstanding public debt of $ 80 billion. Attacking Kuwait in order to expand oil reservoirs and exports is therefore unethical. In addition, it is unethical for Iraq to fail to take accountability for the $ 10 billion debt she owed Kuwait. The debt was given at a point where Iraq was in need of assistance and therefore attempts to forfeit the debt by Iraq is unethical. The international community led by the United States used excessive force to attack Iraq. Even though, it is morally acceptable to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, it is unethical to use excessive force. This usually happens in quest for reconciliation among nations (Amstutz, 2013, p. 129). From an ethical ground, it is important to consider important elements such as whether it morally permissible to threaten or use force when pursuing legitimate national interests in the global world. In addition, it is important to consider the types of threats that should be applied if force must be used. The demands of Iraq should have been considered and then diplomacy be employed at any cost to solve the matter. It was also unethical for the international community to destroy, transport and communication systems in Iraq and other public resources. This is because exposing citizens of a country to poverty is against humanity and hence unethical. Another ethical dimension of the case based on the just war tradition is a form of status quo doctrine under the Western order of sovereignty. The western countries dominate the key decisions of whether a country can be attacked or not. The decisions of the UN Security Council are highly influenced by the western nations. In addition, the western nations lead in implementing the decisions of the UN Security Council. In the case, the Un Security Council authorized the member countries to attack Iraq and the United States led in the aggressive attacks. The status quo doctrine of the just war tradition therefore undermines the sovereignty of other nations in the world, which is not morally acceptable. The other ethical dimension in the case is based on the ultimate goal of just war theory, which is promotion of peace in the international system of countries. As such, there is a significant relationship between the ultimate aim of the just war theory and international law. In this regard, it was unethical to attack Iraq as recommended by the UN Security Council. This is because attacking a country is going against her sovereignty, which is violates international law standards. Sovereignty of any nation should be respected and therefore it was morally wrong and unethical to attack Iraq. There are several advantages of the war demonstrated in the case based on the Just War theory. First, the war was based on a Just Cause. The legitimate cause of the war was to prevent the unjust attack of Kuwait by Iraq. Under the just war theory, this is justified. The other advantage of the case based on the theory is the issue of Competent Authority. The UN Security Council advised the member countries to prevent Iraq from attacking Kuwait by use of any possible means. As such, there was competent authority justifying the w...