PressInfo #175 - The US and Kuwait undermine the UN by entering the demilitarised zone on the Kuwait-Iraq border

Perhaps it is not the most well-known peace mission of the UN, but you will be sure to hear more about it soon as it is situated on the border between Iraq and Kuwait. Its name is UNIKOM (UN Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission), http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unikom/index.html. It was established by Security Council Resolution 687 in 1991. During TFF’s fact-finding mission to Iraq in January this year, we visited the UN mission there.

Reports from the last few days tell that armed US Marines and vehicles have entered this demilitarised zone, DMZ, between Iraq and Kuwait. On the Kuwaiti side, they have cut down fences and set up 7 gates, presumably in preparation of an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

We, the authors, are not experts in international law and shall not judge whether this is a breach of the Security Council Resolution and/or other parts of international law, or whether there is some fine print somewhere that makes this legitimate under certain circumstances. However, we doubt it. It is hard to understand that a UN demilitarised zone can be entered by armed personnel in preparation for an attack on a UN member state and that it would be legal.

But, more importantly, this is undoubtedly a serious political and normative blow to the authority and integrity of the United Nations as such. It undermines both the Security Council and the vitally important, highly competent UNIKOM mission on the ground. It further destabilises the region and signals to the government of Iraq that it will be attacked no matter what it does to avoid war.

It is striking that this unilateral action has not caused a stir and that there has been virtually no international debate about it.

Questions that should be raised

We believe these developments raise a series of important questions pertaining to international peace.

1. Did the United States seek permission from the United Nations before entering into the zone? If so, on what grounds was the US given permission to enter the zone with weapons?

2. When the UN has informed the Security Council about this breach, what will it be able to do when one of its own permanent members ignores a decision made by that very same Council?

3. Can it be morally acceptable and in accordance with the letter and spirit of international law as well as the UN Charter that one member of the UN unilaterally militarises a UN demilitarised zone? If done in preparation for an attack on another member state, can this be legitimate under any circumstances?

4. Is Iraq – a UN member that has, naturally, never signed an SC decision – legally or politically obliged to comply with SC decisions if a Permanent SC Member that has signed SC decisions does not respect them?

5. It would seem that a member state, by entering a UN demilitarised zone with weapons and with the purpose of invading another member constitutes a threat to international peace and security. If so, the Secretary-General can choose to “bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” (Article 99 of the UN Charter). What is the Secretary-General’s opinion in this case when a member state makes a force-based incursion into a zone set up by the organisation he leads?

6. What obligations does UN member Kuwait have as party to the UNIKOM mission? By letting US troops enter its side of the demilitarised zone, does it constitute a breach of the SC decision and the UNIKOM mandate? If so, should Kuwait continue to receive 25% of all Iraq’s oil revenue in war reparations if it, as it seems, contributed to preparing an international aggression on Iraq?

7. What if Baghdad perceives the incursion into the zone as a further increase of the threat against it and, with reference to the inherent right to self-defence (UN Charter Article 51), finds it necessary to enter the UN demilitarised zone from its side?

Why has nobody raised these questions? Has the arrogance of the Bush regime and its systematic defiance of international consultations, norms and laws and its might-make-right policies been so pervasive that they no longer provoke debate?

The U.S. repeatedly points out that Iraq has repeatedly violated Security Council decisions. It argues that the credibility of the Council is at stake when its decisions are not backed up with determination, with force if necessary. In this case it looks as if the United States doesn’t care a damn about its own signature under an SC decision, doesn’t it?

Background

The following are excerpts from UNIKOM’s website:

The Council gave UNIKOM a mandate to monitor the DMZ and the Khawr ‘Abd Allah waterway between Iraq and Kuwait, to deter violations of the boundary, and to observe any hostile action mounted from the territory of one state against the other.

The military observers of UNIKOM are unarmed. Responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in the DMZ rests with the Governments of Iraq and Kuwait, which maintain police posts in their respective parts of the zone. Police are only allowed side arms.

In 1993, the Security Council, by its resolution 806 (1993), expanded the tasks of UNIKOM to include the capacity to take physical action to prevent or redress: (a) small-scale violations of the DMZ; (b) violations of the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait, for example by civilians or police; and (c) problems that might arise from the presence of Iraqi installations and Iraqi citizens and their assets in the DMZ on the Kuwaiti side of the newly demarcated boundary. The Council increased the authorised strength of the mission to 3,645 (three mechanised infantry battalions including support elements) and requested the Secretary-General to execute a phased deployment of the additional elements.

By acting under Chapter VII, the Council demonstrated that the international community would act decisively should Iraq attempt to attack Kuwait again. To further strengthen this, all five permanent members of the Security Council, for the first time in a peacekeeping operation, agreed to provide military observers.

As of 31 December 2002, there were 1,105 total uniformed personnel, comprised of 193 military observers and 912 troops, supported by 63 international civilian personnel and 164 local civilian staff. They came from 32 countries, among them the United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden.

Breach by U.S. Troops Reported
Kuwait-Iraq Zone Crossed, U.N. Says

UNITED NATIONS, March 6 — The United Nations has informed the Security Council that armed U.S. Marines have repeatedly breached a U.N.-monitored demilitarized zone along the Kuwait-Iraq border, potentially violating a 1991 resolution ending the Persian Gulf War.

U.N. peacekeepers monitoring the border “reported numerous violations of the demilitarized zone” since Tuesday by individuals in civilian dress and driving four-by-four vehicles, said chief U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard. He said some of the individuals “were armed and identified themselves as U.S. Marines.”

The U.N. force also reported seeing three spots that had been cut along an electric fence erected near the Iraqi border by Kuwait. The United Nations raised the matter with the Kuwaiti government and asked to be informed of similar activities.

A Kuwaiti official said the United Nations has no right to report any activities to the council beyond the fact of an armed incursion of the demilitarized zone. “Whether or not we cut or move a fence is nobody’s business,” the official said.

It remained unclear whether the alleged activities were part of preparations for a U.S. incursion into Iraq. But the council notification raised questions about whether a U.S.-led invasion through the demilitarized zone would violate a Security Council resolution.

An official at the U.S. mission to the United Nations declined to comment.

— Colum Lynch

Here is a short report from The Miami Herald that gives a good impression of the military situation on the Iraqi side: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/5116262.htm.

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Jan Oberg, TFF director April 28, 2026 In this third TFF Peace Pulse, I make the important distinction between the violence and the conflict that violence is a symptom of. If you want peace, focus on the underlying conflict because that is the key to resolution, peacemaking, and a better future for the parties. The West is obsessed with violence, just look around you – and 90+ per cent of the public debate is about military issues and other violence – totally wasted for peace. These Peace Pulses will only be published here a few times. You will also not find them on YouTube and Vimeo because both platforms have blocked TFF and me; you know, peace is dangerous these days. Most TFF’s videos since 2007 are now on Rumble.

Recent Articles

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.

TFF on Substack

Discover more from TFF Transnational Foundation & Jan Oberg.

Most Popular

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Read More
Screenshot-2026-05-15-103534
Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Screenshot-2026-05-12-104023
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (2)
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (1)
Jan Oberg, TFF director April 28, 2026 In this third TFF Peace Pulse, I make the important distinction between the violence and the conflict that violence is a symptom of. If you want peace, focus on the underlying conflict because that is the key to resolution, peacemaking, and a better future for the parties. The West is obsessed with violence, just look around you – and 90+ per cent of the public debate is about military issues and other violence – totally wasted for peace. These Peace Pulses will only be published here a few times. You will also not find them on YouTube and Vimeo because both platforms have blocked TFF and me; you know, peace is dangerous these days. Most TFF’s videos since 2007 are now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551
In contrast to most, we’ll bring alternatives, solutions, hope and strategies for a better future. Times are dangerous, yes, but that only intensifies the need for constructive thinking and action! Jan Oberg, TFF director April 13, 2026 The new TFF Peace Pulse uses video messages in a new way: Max 3-5-minute-long comments, ideas or perhaps mini-lectures, all about peace – positive peace. We launch them today on April 13, 2026 with a carefully crafted visual aesthetic fitting the content. We hope to publish them regularly from now on. We launch Peace Pulse (PP) – for a number of reasons. The world is in chaos, and there are countless reasons to feel concerned, frustrated, even angry. The atmosphere is saturated with doom and gloom, with negative energy and rear‑mirror thinking, while vision, imagination, alternatives, strategies and genuine future‑mindedness remain in short supply. And without them, we simply can’t save the world. Looking at problems from a hundred angles will...
IMG_5165 (1)
PART II — Publishing Peace in a System That Prioritises Militarism Jan Oberg, TFF director April 10, 2026 How TFF Maintains a Daily Voice in a Digital World Built for Noise This article is part of the series “TFF at 40″ and it invites you to learn about Four Decades of Publishing Peace. It takes a look at how a small, people‑financed peace foundation has communicated across four generations of technology — from wax stencils and fax machines to mass email and Substack — and why TFF continues to publish every single day in a system that rewards noise, conflict, and militarism. ◆ What it means to publish peace every single day in a digital system built for 24/7 news and other noise, confrontation, and militarism. How TFF’s independence, continuity, and global readership defy algorithms, donor cycles, and Western media censorhip — and why the Majority World keeps listening. When the...