When the Security Council subsequently on 2 March 1998 adopted Resolution 1154[2] endorsing the Annan Agreement and warning Iraq of "severest consequences" for any violation, it served as a reminder that the problem cannot be regarded as solved. Although Iraq, as of this writing, appears to be cooperating satisfactorily with its obligations under the Annan Agreement, few would believe that all the remaining inspections will be completed without new troubles and confrontation. The US is currently repeating its earlier threats of military action in the event of any violation of the Annan Agreement. Secretary of State Albright spoke to the US House appropriations foreign operations sub-committee on 4 March 1998:

We are continuing our effort - through diplomacy backed by the threat of force - to see that Iraq complies with its obligations to the world community.[3]

The action the US has been proposing consists of a series of bombing raids on key installations in Iraq. The purpose of the action, as delineated by the US, would be to deal with the refusal of Iraq to live up to its inspection obligations which it agreed to in the cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War. The cease-fire agreement is contained in the resolution adopted by the Security Council on 3 April 1991: Resolution 687 (1991).[4]

Prior to the Annan Agreement, the US took the position that it was authorized to take military action of this nature against Iraq by virtue of existing resolutions of the Security Council.[5] Following the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1154 endorsing the Annan Agreement, the US position changed slightly. Recent statements by high officials have indicated that, before commencing military action, the US would first discuss the matter with the Security Council. Mike McCurry, the White House Press Secretary, is quoted as saying:

. . . as a practical matter, the [US] administration would consult with the Security Council before acting against Iraq . . .[6]

The officials are careful not to say that the US will await approval from the Security Council. The consultations would appear to be a matter of form. Indeed, Bill Richardson, US Ambassador to the UN, has recently made it clear that the US continues to take the position that it is entitled to proceed without approval from the Security Council. (His remarks on the matter were given in the course of a television interview on 2 March 1998.[7]) In the meantime, the naval flotilla remains stationed in the Gulf.

The US has never issued anything in the nature of a formal statement explaining the basis of its position. In lieu of such a statement, Thomas Pickering, the US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, has appeared twice on an interview program and has answered questions put to him on the issue; his answers are given in Section IV of this paper. Some additional explanation of the basis for the US position can be discerned in Ambassador Richardson's remarks during the interview noted above.

These explanations have prompted very little if any public comment. The US media, in particular, seem to have accepted without question the US position as to its legal authority. The few comments that have appeared in the media have almost all been favourable to the US position. (These comments are outlined in Section IV of this paper). Little, if anything, has appeared in the way of a rebuttal. Certainly, nothing in the nature of an expert study on the question has been published in North America.

All of this leaves the impression either that the arguments favouring the US position are so compelling as to be self-evident - or that the issue is irrelevant. This paper is an attempt to remove both these impressions.

The paper begins by addressing the question of relevancy - whether or not it actually matters if the US proceeds without authority from the UN Security Council. The paper then examines in detail the arguments for and against the US position that it already has sufficient authority under existing resolutions. The conclusion reached is that the arguments favouring the US position are unsound.

There is a concluding section offering some suggestions as to actions that could be taken by the UN Security Council at this point to deal with the threat posed by Iraq.