 All right, good morning. Welcome back So far over the last Approximately four weeks we have studied the state of affairs in the Middle East Starting from the immediate post-war war two period. So if we just quickly Go back and see what we have talked about. I mean the the fundamental stones on the Wait from 1945 to the present day. We have covered the period starting I mean we put our yardstick here in 1945 and Of course We being here at the moment. We are not there yet We started from here. We covered the 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s and We are going to cover starting from 1990s and many things have changed especially With one major development in the year 1990 so far, I mean we talk about the of course fundamental Developments major developments in the Middle East first being Well, maybe it was not of that great significance when compared to some other, you know Developments that have taken place in due course from 1945 and onwards but the creation of the Arab League or League of Arab Nations was an important development after all and In we have seen of course. There is this 1948 which is the Proclamation yes creation of the state of Israel or proclamation of independence sovereignty of the state of Israel then we have here Of course, there is this war between Israel and Arab nations and the Nasser period of course, which had an impact since meet 1950s all until late 60s and 70s and of course we have here what are major developments Can you just say something here in the 50s in the 50s? Great Fatih Chalcane says yes, this is Swiss canal crisis And in the 60s we have of course the 67 war Or the June war or six days war whichever you prefer in the 70s we have also a number of other major developments such as What happened in the 70s? Yes, the Yom Kippur war in 97 three. Well, these are of course Very few major developments out of a large number of Again still significant developments in the Middle East that of course some Changes in the regimes, especially that follow the wars between Israel and Arab nations and When we come to the 80s, what do we see especially end of 1970s one again Iranian revolution perfect, so Yom Kippur June war Iranian Revolution said and in the 70s again in the 80s. We have of course Saddam as well as Assad or Assad Empower again Iran another factor and major developments taking place that all of them bring us to the point Where we are going to talk about today more extensively and And one major development shocked the world, which was well, that was one of course The 1990 headed huge impact on the rest of the world including my life as well because I came to Ankara For the first time I stayed ever since and look forward to going back to Istanbul. All right So the end of Cold War. This is one major development There is no question about it and if we confine ourselves more specifically to the Middle East. What do we see? Something happening in the year 1990, which was Well before the war there was something else which was yeah Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on August 2nd Iraqi troops have crossed the border into Kuwaiti territory So of course that was something which was not at all acceptable for For the rest of the world for the free world and I'll try to oops. I'll try to show you here Well We are encountering some difficulties in getting some of these Resolutions here. Yes. This is yeah, this is a resolution night 1660 Can you see? Let me just Have this like here Of course on the day Iraq invaded Kuwait the United Nations Security Council convened a meeting an emergency meeting and of course evaluated the situation and right after that Issued that resolution that declaration actually to the world Saying that determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and acting under articles 39 and 40 of the chart of the United Nations well, this is these are articles from chapter 7 and trusting that you have at least fundamental knowledge basic knowledge about the United Nations Charter and chapters I'll Elaborate these issues a little bit more in a moment and of course acting on the articles 39 and 40 make making direct reference to these articles as Of course a reason and a reason that I will explain the moment meaning that The actions that the United Nations Security Council or decision that the United Nations Security Council may take may involve actions that will force that may involve use of force because use of force is Forbidden by the United Nations Charter with a couple of exceptions And that was actually the principle on which the whole United Nations system Was based and I'll again talk about this issue in a moment and it condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait That is it did not accept and it did not just turn a blind eye. Well, because there were some developments in other parts of the world before and after and the United Nations Security Council was blamed for not taking proper action abruptly or just promptly And not even condemning developments, but of course the conjectural developments had an impact on That kind of behavior. Well, we'll talk about Again in detail and demand that Iraq we throw immediately and conditionally All its forces to the position which they were so on the day Iraqi forces crossed the border into the your Kuwaiti territory the United Nations condemn the act and Considered this as an act of aggression because making direct reference to article 39 Suggested it It considers this an act of aggression again considering this as an act of aggression is important because Without defining whether this is an act of aggression or not United Nations Security Council cannot take decisions with respect to authorization of use of force to a group of countries or coalition of forces and Called upon Iraq to begin immediately Intensive negotiations which actually was the case Iraq and Iraq representatives and and other countries have met in different For in different places they Negotiated the situation of course the position of the United Nations and the free world the rest of the world was clear Message was clear here. We throw your troops immediately. This is not an act This is an unacceptable act. This is an act of aggression and if you don't We throw you will of course have to suffer the consequences as you can see here This is by the way Resolution 661 the second resolution after the first one on which was issued on the first on the day of Invasion and a few days later just four days there the United Nations Security Council Took the second in the series of many other developments that follow Up until the late 1990s and again here Made much clearer much more explicit reference to Acting under chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter. What does this tell you? I mean now your students junior students senior students, I mean third year for your students and You must have taken already international law and international organizations courses and at least you must be taken right now and it's already about a month Since the beginning of the semester What does this clear reference to chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter? Tell you what is what is its significance? I just said something, but can you elaborate a little bit more? Does it ring a bell? doesn't Know chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter All right, let's try to figure ops again. Sorry for that well as You can see here. This is chapter 6 it talks about pacific settlement of disputes meaning pacific means, you know peaceful or Measures other than meter measures and So if there is a reference to chapter 6 that you should understand it diplomacy will be used as a as a tool in the reconciliation of the differences of the dispute between or among the parties so pacific settlement of disputes and Visage using The merits of diplomacy mediation arbitration and other institutional frameworks with a view to solving the problem and if there is a reference to chapter 7 as the title suggests here Action with respect to the threats to peace breaches of the peace and acts of aggression So that means we are talking about in security situation. There is There is a threats. Well, of course for chapter 7 to be Enforced It does I mean it is not necessary for something to have happened already the the mere threat of something that That may happen in the future or in the or something is imminent Then United Nations Security Council should also sit and consider the situation with a view to Taking necessary precautions to prevent such an occurrence So this should remind you the very subject of your simulation. Remember in the simulation Subject I wrote down here emergence meeting to be convened I'm presided over by the US Secretary General with a view to discussing the security situation in the Middle East with particular Emphasis on Iran's nuclear program and the concerns of regional countries About the possible course of action that may be taken against Iran by Israel and or United States So there is a threat that the United Nations Security Council sort of a secret general anticipates and and and he makes a threat assessment. He looks at the world he Maybe as a result of consultations with the delegations from Middle Eastern Region then he concludes that Unless certain actions are taken in the United States and Israel may you know launch an attack Against Iran and therefore he convinced this meeting and this is going to be the subject of your simulation So each country delegation must make necessary precautions to make necessary statements During the simulation this point has to be properly understood and this is something that will be considered within the context of chapter 7 so threats to peace breaches of the peace and that means breach has already occurred violation of Borders for instance of a country has taken place or an act of aggression is Also something that has taken place therefore This is this is a chapter which deals with this kind of situations and this is therefore One of the most significant Chapters in the United Nations Charter of course the entire charter. I mean every single word makes sense and has a weight starting from the preambler sections which declares which you know explains the basic principles of the Charter I mean of the United Nations for purpose and principles here and there are some other Chapters dealing with the powers of the Security Council for instance the powers of the Secret General of the United Nations the General Assembly etc. But this one chapter 7 is one which has been of course subject to many discussions many analysis in This context. Let me just go into this little bit and see what is written here article 39 just remember that UN Security Council resolution 660 which was Issued on the day of invasion here In the UN resolution 660 made reference direct reference to article 39 and article 40 So let's go. Let's read what what is written here The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to peace to the peace breach of the peace or act of aggression and Shall make recommendations or decide what measure shall be taken in accordance with articles 41 42 to maintain and restore Or restore international peace and security Well, this is something that is of utmost importance and I will explain the reason why Making direct reference to article 39 here makes sense or not making direct reference to article 39 also Says a lot for instance during the Yugoslavia crisis or the Yugoslav War the Balkan Wars the United Nations Security Council was not able to make direct reference to article 39 which of course blocked the way or prevented the rest of the world from stopping atrocities in the Balkans and many people were killed in the hands of the fighting parties and serves etc. So Article 39 makes reference a clear reference to the act of aggression and Without making reference to this It is not possible for the United Nations Security Council to take such measures that would Including others of course that would include the use of force Because here it says the maintaining or restoring international peace and security. This is one particular principle one particular duty of the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations system as a whole because we should remember That there was of course another such institution which was created in the immediate aftermath of the First World War or World War One, which was the League of Nations The League of Nations Rested upon the principle that states would be better off if they did not fight, but rather try to solve their differences through diplomacy through political Instruments economic instruments, etc. Because they had just very recently experienced the a high number of casualties there were Massacres there were large number of people who were killed by chemical weapons So many people were dislocated so millions of people lost their lives during the World War One so The statesmen the politicians diplomats scholars intellectuals all who had any bit of conscience sort of made References to the need for establishing an institution an international body by means of which to you know differences between states or the Competing claims of states could be somehow Resolved through mediation diplomacy arbitration and the League of Nations was established and work well pretty much well In some respect work to do this advantage of Turks because the League of Nations had a very negative role in Turkey's losing muscle Regardless of all this Eventually Turkey became part of the League of Nations system, but the League of Nations lacked something that was Very very essential the League of Nations had almost the similar a structure Institutional framework it had a covenant which was the Charter of the League of Nations and it also had a console Which also was composed of a number of countries But they did not have any power to veto unlike the United Nations Secret Council's permanent members today yet the the the system was established to Provide the necessary mitigation tools diplomacy And then political initiatives whatever that would be necessary to solve the problems But it lacked something very important Like many people say it didn't have a suit. I mean to bite it could not Hurt the ones who Committed active aggression it had a certain norms principles in place there were some of course Chapters or articles which would necessitate use of diplomacy which would suggest use of diplomacy instead of fighting but The the the League of Nations did not have enough power to enforce its decisions and that was seen especially when Italy Invaded Ethiopia and there was this war the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in Neither cases the League of Nations could take any Measure actually took decisions, but it was not capable of enforcing its decisions and in the case of Italy for instance Italy under Mussolini threatened all countries which would impose sanctions as was suggested by the resolutions of the League of Nations And threatened these countries with counter action with retaliation So the League of Nations which in principle Rested upon this principle of collective security could not put this principle in practice so having seen especially Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and in Japanese invasion of Manchuria as well as the rearmament of the German army under Hitler or Nazi Germany all these developments could not be prevented by the League of Nations, which of course paid paved the way to the World War two and after which the League of Nations system collapsed and In return for which there was this United Nations system and the United Nations system was Discussed during the war not right after the war. It was discussed throughout the war and and those who have drawn some lessons from the League of Nations experience Wanted to create a much more effective body something that could be more effective in case there will be an act of aggression because and again the very same principle of collective security was adopted by the United Nations Charter and according to the Charter It was so believed that if all countries would display their resolve to prevent a few Countries one or more countries from Using force against their neighbors or against other countries with a view to achieving their objectives If if the rest of the world would just stand up against such an act of aggression Either these countries would be deterred from not pursuing their ambitions Or even if they deterrence failed and they committed a certain act of aggression They would be punished which would set a precedent an example for others And then that would deter the future act of acts of aggression So therefore the United Nations Security Council again rested upon the principle of collective security and that the security for one also security for all Against the aggressors for that to happen of course this chapter as will go down I will see in the in the following articles from starting from article 39 One major thing was important definition of act of aggression because if there is an act of aggression then you sort of commit yourself to eliminate it or at least to Know make the one who committed that act of aggression pay the consequences dearly So this reference to article 39 and article 40 Which is in order to prevent an act an aggravation of situation Security Council may Before making the recommendation of deciding upon measures Provided for an article 39 call upon party is concerned So to take such measures that may lead to the authorization of and use of force so this Again this this article is extremely important and without making a reference to this no further action can be taken and There were Situations especially during the Cold War years when the United Nations Security Council could not agree upon could not develop Consensus as to whether there was an act of aggression I mean throughout the Cold War years because there was this this more or less bipolar system the Eastern World Western World and the Third World and Because the United Nations Security Council is composed of now 15 countries and five for which have veto power and one of them if they if that Particular country whichever country might be vetoed is a decision. No decision would be taken So therefore it was extremely important for the United Nations Security Council Members especially the permanent members to come to a consensus or at least One of those who had veto power not to veto a decision But during the Cold War years because for instance in some cases the Soviet Union veto it or cast its veto power use its veto power to stop a Resolution from being adopted or China in some cases or United States or France or United Kingdom So therefore it was not possible Until such time to agree upon a country's act of aggression which would eventually Pave the way to the authorization of use of force again. Why am I making so much reference to the authorization of use of force because Just like it was the case in the League of Nations Covenant and The same principle was also adopted in the United Nations Charter Which was which in a sense outlawed the use of force Use of force is illegal the Charter says but there are basically two exceptions one of which of course the Use of force for protecting yourself self-defense as you can see here and There are some of course limitations to that as well. It's not an extensive Right for instance Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective Self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations Until this point is important Until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security And measures taken by members of by members in exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and Shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take any time Such action as it seems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security Well The summary of what is said here is a long one of course, but diplomatic statements or sentences may have to include certain things so that There should be no Disagreement as to what is the exact amount there or there should not be different interpretations of what is written here Because this always the case with text of international documents or agreements One of two parties may have a different interpretation of what may have been put there in the text So therefore diplomats must negotiate this Very carefully and therefore negotiations of international treaties agreements Conventions and things like that take a lot of time sometimes decades not even years So therefore it says here that of course members of the United Nations have their inherent something that is in there in their no presence in their Very being it is not it is an unalienable right They don't need to get this authorization from anybody you do not wait on to someone to tell you to protect yourself You just have this right without getting permission from anybody you have the right to protect yourself and if you are Against an act of aggression if you are sort of if somebody attacks you Then you have the right to use force against the aggressor But it says until such time the United Nations Security Council Sees is the matter I mean takes control of the matter So therefore and an attack against a country does not give that country which is attack Which is being attacked by another country to use force against the country which which attacked that country To use force against it Without any limit. There is some limit to even self-defense Defending yourself because your self-defense act may go beyond Certain limits may go beyond your anticipation and may cause other troubles for the region for the country For your own people and for the rest of the world. So therefore you have the right to defend yourself and of course the United Nations Security Council will take necessary measures from a certain point onwards and Since then and starting from that point on you also have to observe the decisions of the United Nations Security Council Because you are now part of the system. So these things Are things that you should bear in mind. You should definitely remember well, what happened during this or following the Yes following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as I said the United Nations Security Council took a number of decisions and passed a certain Certain resolutions which had a number of which incorporated a number of decisions By the way, just something and that should that you should keep in your mind at all times if you are going to deal with United Nations related issues. I mean if one day you may become an analyst someone who worked for an international organization Think tank or maybe a professor. So what you have to bear in mind, of course every single Paragraph of every single United Nations Security Council resolutions are important But if you don't have time because sometimes These Decisions or resolutions are not that short Sometimes we have 15 page 20 page long resolutions and if you have Very few time a little time to make a comment You have to go direct to the paragraphs which start with the sites Because of course all other progress are all equally important But when you go to the paragraphs which start with the sites you of course get information about What kind of decisions the United Nations Security Council has taken because these decisions have to be implemented By all members of the United Nations system if a country is a member of the UN it has to observe the Decisions taken by the United Nations Security Council of course, this is something that Tells us the major difference between the United Nations Security Council and also the United Nations General Assembly you might have seen on many Occasions that there are also resolutions issued by the United Nations General Assembly and the The major difference between the UN General Assembly resolutions and United Nations Security Council resolutions is that The United Nations General Assembly resolutions do not have binding power. They do not bind countries They do not sort of compel the states the member states to you know do something These resolutions of course are important and we have seen how significant they may be during the Korean War when the United Nations Security Council was blocked because of the Membership of China where there was this revolution Which China would represent would be represented at the United Nations Security Council was the key issue during the Korean War but still a decision had to be taken and because of the Holocaust at the UN Security Council the United Nations General Assembly resolution uniting for peace resolution You know paved the way to the intervention of the United States and other countries including Turkey in the peninsula and This the war between 1950 and 53 Which is still? Not finished. There is still not a peace agreement. There is still a ceasefire Enforced and therefore that was how UN Security General Assembly resolution could be significant We can understand from that but in In all our instances we have seen the United Nations Security Council decisions to make a difference and This therefore Important and the UN Security Council decisions have binding power They have to be enforced by all the members of the United Nations, but of course there are certain Exceptions of this and if a country considers that Implementing the United Nations Security Council decisions will cause damage to its vital interests and Will cause harm to its vital interests then it can consult the matter with the UN Security Council Which was the case for instance for Jordan during the Iraq War? Or during the sanctions that were applied to Iraq Because of this invasion So what we have seen here in resolution 60 the first one and 61 and onwards We have seen a long sort of process of negotiations between Iraqis I mean Saddam's representatives In various platforms, of course within the body of the United Nations In Geneva for instance where which is the headquarters of the League of Nations and today The League of Nations building is being used as the United Nations offices in Geneva These negotiations took place in Geneva as well as in New York and in other places Between the major countries of the UN system and also Iraq, but of course the United Nations Security Council does not go to the very last sort of measure in terms of restoring peace and security Because there are some interim measures between today no action and the last sort of measure Which is a use of force in the meantime? There are some other instruments economic instruments political diplomatic instruments as I said political diplomatic instruments were used and that was negotiations and then with a view to Persuading or convincing Iraq that it would not be in their best interest To stay in the Kuwaiti territory that they had to withdraw so the the United Nations Other members of the UN did not negotiate with Iraq Just to you know, you know make a deal or cut a deal Over the territories of Kuwait the position of the rest of the world was clear as has been explained here and 660 and 661 the outright withdrawal of Iraqi forces There was no Constations to be made and the only purpose of negotiation was to convince Iraq that it would be in their best interest If they withdrew from Iraq, so that was clear and also in the meantime There were some other measures such as what kind of measure you can think of I mean war or using force is one And this is the ultimate measure that UN Security Council would like to resort to and there's this political negotiations So what else? Yes embargo economic sanctions and other type of measures economic measures because you do not want to hurt people so I'm sorry. Let's Because war or use of force must definitely be the ultimate way of Solving difference as I said the UN system rests upon this principle of Outlawing use of force as I said one exception was The self-defense and the other exception is according to Article 2 of the UN Charter, which is the authorization of the United Nations Security Council So there is actually no other way of legitimizing use of force Legitimacy of use of force would be on the two major conditions one of which is Self-defense and there is authorization of UN Security Council. Yes, sir. Excuse me. Are they Well, by the way weapons of mass distractions are not weapons are not regarded as weapons by the UN system either and they are also illegitimate so I Mean when I said you there is limit to use of Arms is not in the types of or a number of arms I mean for instance your attack a part of your country is attack is under attack and If that country which is now attack which is being attacked by a neighbor and country for instance takes this Case and uses this as a pretext or for justification of a large-scale Contra attack and goes all the way to for instance In weight the count the territory of the country which has attack first so that that is something that goes out of proportion and out of the Limits that could explain your Use of force with a view to defending yourself Defending yourself is something else but benefiting from the situation for other purposes or Exploiting the situation or abusing the situation is another thing So United Nations Security Council says if you're under attack, of course You don't have to wait for me to react first you can defend yourself with proper measures Of course in a proportionate way you defend your territory you defend your citizens you defend your security forces but until such time I take I start considering the issue and When I start taking measures you should be part of the system you cannot act alone as if we are not there for you Okay, so this is what is somewhat limited in terms of self-defense Otherwise a country may very well as I said exploit the situation by way of going beyond anticipation beyond what is what will be considered as a legitimate way of defending your own Assets citizens the security forces territory Etc. So as I said two things I mean self-defense and UN authorization is important and United Nations Security Council, let's go back to the charter here Yes, yeah as you can see here Article 41 42 talks about For the tree there is this talk about measures that would persuade a country to somehow Maybe step back back down and then you know we throw from positions If there was an invasion and also go along with the decisions of the United Nations Because sometimes I mean in the Iraqi case of course that was not the case but a country may be under a Mitra dictatorship and that Mitra dictator may have you know ambitions to gain more territories and you know just just like Iraqi situation Kuwait situation, but there may be some Developments within the country and that dictator may be toppled down and the new regime may want to go along with the Decisions of the United Nations Security Council. So therefore, I mean if the UN Security Council Authorized use of force from the very beginning. Of course, it would be an immature act I mean without resorting to other instruments political instruments economic instruments in order to persuade the country Which has committed an act of aggression to restore the situation go to the you know Situation you know ex ante I mean which was before all these acts of aggression happened Then if you don't give a chance to the country to restore situation and use And authorize use of force then of course this will Claim the lives of many many people thousands tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of people may get killed Because of such a decision. So the UN system also United Nations Security Council as well should act with a Certain degree of responsibility. So therefore, there are all these interim measures For instance here article 41 the Security Council may decide what measures not involving The use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions So you see UN Security Council first of all decided Taking such measures without or short of use of force and such decisions that would still be effective in in terms of reversing the situation and Causing or making the Iraqi leadership to think again and Withdraw if if possible. So that was the first step the United Nations Security Council Decided but of course in due course we have seen the impossibility of Persevering Saddam Hussein to withdraw withdraw from the Iraqi Kuwaiti territory regardless all initiatives taken by a number of countries which They thought may have may have had a certain impact certain influence on Iraq Even then even them they failed such as France for instance. It had a certain degree of impact on Iraqi Leadership they also failed and on the country They were really Aggravated in a sense by certain actions taken by Saddam Hussein During this crisis situation and because France from the beginning Was one such country which considered seriously using its veto to prevent harsh economic measures sanctions on Iraq and Because of certain actions of Saddam Hussein they decided not to exercise their veto, right? Not to use their veto, right and again when it came to later on to the authorization of use of force again France seriously considered vetoing this decision because it would pay the way to an arms struggle between Iraq and The Western and other powers but again because of certain things that Saddam Hussein did Committed France again decided not to use their veto, right? So these were interesting moments during this crisis, which I was also closely scrutinized and closely Following because it was my first year in International relations after all these years in engineering studies. All right Let's give a break here and we'll continue after the break with the rest of the story