The Persian Gulf War from a Realist and an Idealist Approach

1.- Introduction

The Gulf War is known for many other names according to different views, regions, and perspectives that name it. Among these we find, the Gulf War, Persian Gulf War, War in the Gulf, 1990 Gulf War, Gulf War Sr. or First Gulf War, Second Gulf War, Liberation of Kuwait, Mother of all Battles and Operation Desert Storm.[1] All these possible combinations to address the Gulf War exist to distinguish it from the previous Iraq-Iran War and the following 2003 Iraq War. For the United states this conflict was substantial because it was the first time they entered in war again after the disaster of the Vietnam War. The magnitude of this conflict is explained after the highly influence of the previous war with Iran. The Gulf War significance is such that the crisis did not end completely after the official date of termination, but it continued until the year 2003 in which the United States started direct action against the Iraqui regime.
The reasons that led to the conflict varies according to the different analitical possitions we may take. Clear motivations were the preservation of the international peace, as well as the defence of an uncapable state such as Kuwait. Deeply in the topic, the question of the crude focused the international attention due to the dependence of all states’ economy on such natural resource, particularly the United States’.
When examining the conflict we will deal with two principal theoretical approaches to the International political structure: Realism and Idealism. In analysing the conflict we may encounter behaviours from international actors that cannot be considered as homogeneous theoretically speaking. This may be due to the anarchical international political arena in which we still live because no attainable global consensus has been established yet to order the international political system.

2.- Realistic Point of view

The main tenet of the Realistic approach to International Politics is Power. Power as the first and last reason of its procedures. To apply this belief in the analysis of the Gulf War seems clear and easy. One of the goals of Saddam Hussein when he tookover Iraq in 1979, was to make whole is country again with the annexation of Kuwait. Apart from that, when Iraq started military actions to invade Kuwait, Hussein was already thinking on the Hama oil fields, Saudi Arabia’s more valuable resources. Iraqi control of these fields as well as Kuwait and Iraqi reserves would have given it a large share of the world’s oil supply, second only to Saudi Arabia itself. If he were succesful in his deed, Sadam would be considered hegemon of that rich oil area. The United States, Europe and Japan saw such a potential monopoly as dangerous. But it is not only a question of oil; territory was another relevant issue in Sadam’s agenda. He wanted to gain access to the sovereignty of an old disputed territory, Kuwait, to adquire power above such a strategic area in the Persian Gulf.
Another important principle defended by realists is their interest towards their security. Hussein accused Kuwait on 17 July of oil overproduction and theft of oil from the Rumailia Oil Field. The ultimate goal of this ruler was to provide security and welfare to his state. So, anything against his state interests would be considered bad and will have to be combated without taking in moral consideration. [2]To comprise the national interests he needed to be economically and politically self-sufficient, thereby reducing dependency on untrustworthy neighbouring nations. A nation can only advance its interests against the interests of other nations; this implies that the international environment is inherently unstable. Whatever order may exist it breaks down when nations compete for the same resources. Iraq was not the only actor that jointed the conflict to protect their security. The United States also acted in consequence to the threat towards their national welfare caused by the invasion of Kuwait. George H.W. Bush signed secret National Security Directive 26, which begins, “Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security.”[3] And proceeds “Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Persian Gulf and the Middle East.”[4] No doubt that one of the reasons, if not the main one, of the United States to enter in the Gulf War was to protect the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia, indirectly favouring the export of crude to the major purchaser: themselves.
Even though the small country of Kuwait was not a serious menace for the Regime of Saddam Hussein, and also the disrupted borderline between the two counties made difficult to know which oil was whom, the Iraqi ruler felt compelled to invade it in a preventive act. He could not trust in other rulers because people are bad. This malevolent opinion about the human nature is another feature according to realist thinkers.
According to realists, the International Political system is anarchical. There is no sovereign entity ruling above the sovereign states in the world. Whilst this anarchy needs not to be chaotic, for various member states of the international community may engage in treaties or in trading patterns that generate an order of sorts, most theorists conclude that law or morality does not apply beyond the nation’s boundaries. In this Hobbesian state of nature, the relations between self-seeking political entities are necessarily a-moral. As Thomas Hobbes stated there is not an international Leviathan and so, we live in a permanent state of nature in which people live outside any political organization. That is why Saddam Hussein decided to invade Kuwait deliberately. He thought no other state was going to interfere in matters among Arab states. There was no authority in the international political arena with the right to say a word if he wanted to attack his neighbour, according to the Iraqi ruler.
As realists defend the only pertinent actor in international politics are states. That is why the Iraqi president stated on November 16th 1990 that he only would get to agreement with the United States or with Saudi Arabia. Saddam disregarded international organizations, i.e. United Nations. Examples of this are the innumerable UN resolutions which Iraq simply ignored, as for instance resolution 707 in which the UN condemned the violation of a prior resolution 687 of the UN Security Council.
Another important realistic principle related to the idea of power is the Balance of Power. According to Hobbes this was the only way to guarantee stability. Giucciardini also talked about this idea in which everybody is afraid of everybody. When appeared a state as Iraq which seemed to be able to dominate 24% of all the oil in the world in only 4 hours, other states, such as the ones that formed the coalition, allied to dominate that one who was gathering all the power.[5] They allied to stop Saddam because although there are asymmetries in power, these cannot be too many. Once the alliance was made the group of states was seeking to be hegemony to be able to diminish the attempt of oil monopoly carried out by Saddam. The United States did not withdraw the Iraqi regime at the end of the Gulf War in order not to destabilize the balance of power in the region and allowing a future attack by Iraq’s greedy neighbours.
One interesting note to Political Realism is that realists believe states always act rationally. In other words, whatever a state does must be rational. Morgenthau explained that International Politics could be analyzed in a rational way. When a state decides to enter into a war is because it thinks it is the most rational thing to do. For realists, the rational way is the maximization of power, that is, the eternal struggle for power is the most rational thing to do. For Saddam, the invasion of Kuwait was the most reasonable thing to do as he was aiming to improve his state’s power above the other states in the area.
Realists do not always favour using war as the first method of influence. They simply recognize that at times it is a necessary course of action. The United States followed this pattern when deciding entering the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait. They tried previous measures to attain their goal by peaceful means. They only proceeded to military intervention when they realized that was the way to redirection Saddam’s behaviour.

3.- Idealistic Point of View

The Idealist theory focuses in ideas not in power as realists do. This system is not based on power but in rules and reason. This world order would be based on International Law and collective security. In this scheme, sovereign decisions should not be taken outside international institutions. Moreover, idealists consider that the human nature is good in origin and that any maleability is changeable in future [6], whereas realist think the human being is bad in nature.
Following this argument the United States would have had this way of action in the Gulf War crisis. They relied in International Institutions because they can change the nature of a state. That is why Kuwait and the United States asked the UN Security Council for an emergency meeting after the Iraqui militia had invaded Kuwait on August 2nd 1990. They relied in this International Organization that aims to order the international system. There were passed 16 UN resolutions which were rejected by the Iraqui president. It was only after the UN was incapable of making react Sadam Hussein when the United States started military actions in the area to free Kuwait and avoid the threat of a possible invasion of Saudi Arabia.
Another relevant principle in the idealist ideology is the idea of Just War. The United States, together with a International coalition of 35 states, decided to procede with the military intervention when it was necessary according to international policy. Among the legitimate reasons to start belligerant acts, the United States claimed they were intervening to defend the Kuwaiti population as well as to defend a possible attack of Saudi Arabia. In doing so, the United States were acting according to self-defence and to protect the international security.
Among the legitimate means used in the Gulf War, the UN demanded Iraq in the UN resolution 687, to stop producing any Weapon of Mass Destruction nor any chemical weapons which were used during the war and which lately provoked the so called Gulf War Syndrome. Many returning coalition soldiers reported illnesses following their participation in the Gulf War. There has been widespread speculation and disagreement about the causes of the illness and reported birth defects. Some factors considered as possibly causal include exposure to depleted uranium, chemical weapons, anthrax vaccine given to deploying soldiers, and /or infectious diseases.
Another of the legitimate means of the just War, established by international laws, is not to attack civilians. The increased importance of air attacks from both warplanes and cruise missiles led to much controversy over the level of civilian deaths caused during the initial stages of the war. The first attack by the coalition were airstrikes what made difficult to prevent civilian casualties. In most cases, the allies avoided hitting civilian-only facilities. However, on February 13th 1991, two laser-guided “smart bombs” destroyed the Amiriyah blockhouse. Amiriyah was a military bunker with a civilian bunker built deliberately over it by Saddam, in violation of the Geneva Convention. He used his own population as a shield to hide his operational base if this was bombed by the coalition and so, to have an excuse to protest against the way the coalition was attacking him.
The idealist approach to international politics can be connected somehow with the Roman Philosophical School Stoa. Stoics had an Universalist idea of government. They applied the word Cosmopolitism to reffer to this thought applied to the whole polis. They defended that humans are equal and that they have some inner rights. In the Greece policy that rights were just applied in relation with the polis. So, in Rome they already dealt with the idea of Human Rights. In this International conflict human rights were not left aside as it is clearly seen in the UN resolution 688. This resolution came after the war was officially ended to protect the integrity of the repressed Iraqui population and to permit the international humanitarian aid to attend the more injured part of the Iraqui people.
As Adam Smith, the founding father os Economic Liberalism, declared, state intervention in the market only hindrances its development. Economic agents are considered bad. Wars distracts trade and this makes loss for both parts of the conflict. So, states should promote peace and prosperity according to Smith. Saddam Hussein was looking forward to acquiring Kuwaiti’s oil supplies together with the ones in Saudi Arabia. His interests were based on a governamental arrangement of the crude oil, not leaving opportunity to a deregulation and liberation of the system to promote profitability. The United States entered into the war aiming to protect the means by which they imported the oil from Saudi Arabia prior to the Iraqui invasion of Kuwait.
Norman Angell argued that markets worked on interdependence and this interdependence makes war extremelly irrational. He sated that no profit could be taken from war; that the only goods to people were only through free trade. That is why the United States together with the UN and the coallition considered the war with Kuwait as irrational and as such they tried to avoid by all means any bellicose act against Iraq. They exposed, through the UN, their unacceptability of the invasion of Kuwait by means of several UN resolutions setting a date for a definitive withrowal of the Iraqui forces. Once this was not carried out by the Iraqui president, despite of the UN economic sanctions to Iraq, the troops of the coalition entered into force as a last resource to provide estability to the invaded area.
The international coalition together with the UN tried by all means not to take aggressive measures, trying to get an apeasement working on diplomacy. This is considered to be a rational measure to prevent a war. Apeasement was intended not to scalate the crisis but to solve the problem. In the Gulf War this apeasement was disregarded by Saddam’s part due to his obsession to reach his golden mine of power. The Iraqui president ruled a revisionist power and as such, according to Kissinger, diplomacy does not work with that kind of powers. So if there is such a clush between a status quo system and a revisionist one a war will probably come. This was the case between the international coalition-status quo power- and the Iraqi president who did not recognized at all the legitimacy of the international system.

4.- Conclusions

Even though a coalition was created to fight against the Iraqi president, the clear opponent of Saddam Hussein was the United States. It was one highly affected by the possible consequences of Saddam’s success in his militar campaign. The United States intervention in the conflict was made with especial consideration with the UN Security Council. A prior long period of diplomacy was necessary before the final determination to take military action was decided.
As we have been able to see, there is not a straight path of behaviour when talking about international politics. The ustable international arena may be favorable for this to happen. International leaders may find this opportunity quite propitious to develop their own way towards the fulfilment of their power and interests goals. It will be possible, only through the gradually acceptability of the intervention of international organs by all the soverign states in the world, that a clear and regular behaviour towards the organization of the international system would be achieved.
The realist and idealist approaches have been the focus of the first international Great Debate. Nowadays, due to the plural environment in which we live, there is not an appropiate theory to follow regarding international affairs. In general terms, there are mainly two tendencies, states with longing for power which will use all possible means to attain their goals and, on the other hand states that will make use of all diplomatic means to attain their main goal, a “perpetual peace” in the international political landscape.










5.- Sources

Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Social Contract. 1972.
Machiavelli. The Prince. 1513.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/docdirective.htm
http://www.plus.es/codigo/noticias/especiales/fichanoticia.asp?id=218166&noti=221328
http://www.indepthinfo.com/iraq/
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
http://othermatters.wordpress.com/2006/02/02/the-sword-of-political-idealism-i/







[1] http://www.plus.es/codigo/noticias/especiales/fichanoticia.asp?id=218166&noti=221328

[2] Machiavelli. The Prince. 1513.
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/docdirective.htm
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/docdirective.htm
[5] http://www.plus.es/codigo/noticias/especiales/fichanoticia.asp?id=218166&noti=217817

[6] Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Social Contract. 1972.