What do you think? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Is the "COALITION" a United Nations force?
Yes 2 6.90%
No 27 93.10%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-26-2003, 08:52 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:31 AM
Yes, but you are responding to someone who believed the war was nevcessary, and does not believe the UN authorized it. I do however believe that inspectors should be embedded with our search teams, as reporters were embedded during the conflict to make it more legitimate in the worlds eyes. Just as the war would have had more legitimacy if it were approved by the Security Council.

Again, this is my opinion. I understand your stance on it.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 01:47 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:31 PM
No: the US/UK weren't given authorisation by the UN to begin the war and the resolution proposed regarding the reconstruction of Iraq did not give significant involvement to the UN. I think it's an occupation by the United States, not the United Nations.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 02:36 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Finally after authorizing the use of military force in 1441 if Iraq failed its "one last chance", the UN has officially recognized the current US and UK occupation of Iraq with resolution 1483. There can now be no doubt that Operation Iraqi Freedom and the current occupation, along with all rules and regulations with regards to the search for WMD, etc, is indeed a UN operation.

Here is a little from 1483:

"Noting the letter of May 8, 2003 from the permanent representatives of the United States Of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of The Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the "Authority"),"

"Noting further that other States that are not occupying powers are working now or in the future may work UNDER the Authority,"

"Welcoming further willingness of Member States to contribute to security and stability in Iraq by contributing personal, equipment, and other resources UNDER the Authority,"


It is clear from the above that the member states that contributed to the UN military operation to bring about Iraqi compliance with the resolutions are currently in control and authorized to have control of the situation in Iraq.

This resolution indeed approves of the actions of the past 3 months conducted by the US, UK, and Australia. There has never been any official mention by the United Nations in any document that Operation Iraqi Freedom was not a UN operation or in fact illegal. UN resolution 1441 authorized the use of that force. Resolution 1483 reafirm and approves the actions of Operation Iraqi Freedom done with the authorization from 1441. It recognizes the current occupation force and its Authority and the obligation of other member states to work UNDER that Authority.

I think in the future, Historians will note the strong opposition within the UN to Operation Iraq Freedom, but will view it as a UN operation in light of Resolutions 678, 687, 1441, and now 1483. In light of what 1483 recognizes its rather difficult for anyone now to dispute the fact that the past 3 months was a UN operation.

By the way, I'm still waiting for ANYONE to give me their alternative detailed definition of the meaning of "Serious Consequences" in resolution 1441 if one does not define that as meaning the use of military force.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 04:59 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:31 AM
You have failed to show that it does mean "USE OF FORCE" just as it is impossible for anyone to prove it means something else.

I may be way out of line, but I see nothing that says the US and Coalition were acting under UN Authority. I see this recognizing them as occupying powers, and gives members states the ability to act to help bring about self rule of the country of Iraq.

What you have posted does not legitimize the use of force. In my opinion.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 08:58 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Dreadsox,


"You have failed to show that it does mean "USE OF FORCE" just as it is impossible for anyone to prove it means something else."

In my opinion I have succeeded. The "Serious Consequenses" that 1441 said Iraq would face took place as Iraq was already facing two of the most serious actions a country can face short of the use of military force, international economic sanctions and a weapons embargo. The only thing I can think of that is more serious than international economic sanctions or a weapons embargo is military force. Remember, Iraq had to face a consequense that is serious and the only thing as serious or more serious than what it was currently facing is military force.

It was widely known for months what the Bush Administrations policy was toward Iraq. It was Bush that put the resolution 1441 to the vote and authorized the language in the vote of "Serious Consequences". Everyone prior to the vote knew what the Bush Administration meant by "Serious Consequenses". 1441 would not exist if it was not for the Bush administration. Despite all this, the Bush Administration recieved a 15-0 vote.

The main thing that proves my claim is the simple fact that the only thing that Iraq was not facing at the time that could be considered as "Serious Consequences" was military force, in light of the fact that they were already facing the two most serious non-military actions a country can face.

But I never asked anyone to prove that it indeed meant something else, I simply asked for a suggestion of what else it could mean in light of the context of the situation at that time. No one has even offered a single suggestion. That is more proof for me that "Serious Consequences" means military force. In light of the contexts, there is simply nothing else it could specifically mean.


"I may be way out of line, but I see nothing that says the US and Coalition were acting under UN Authority. I see this recognizing them as occupying powers, and gives members states the ability to act to help bring about self rule of the country of Iraq."

In fact the US and the Coalition have been defined in the resolution as the "Authority".

The recognition of the USA and UK as occupying powers legitamizes the actions that were taking to become occupying powers.

For example, Iraq was never recognized as the occupying power of Kuwait, with the Authority to make decisions about the domestic situation there and that countries attempting to work in Kuwait would do so under the Authority of Iraq.

The reason of course is that the UN never felt the actions of Iraq to be legal. Simply put, the UN would never recognize an occupation that came about through illegal action. In fact, it would attempt to reverse it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 11:21 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In fact the US and the Coalition have been defined in the resolution as the "Authority".

The recognition of the USA and UK as occupying powers legitamizes the actions that were taking to become occupying powers.

Two points........

#1 Is there another governing body that can be defined as the authority?

#2 You are right, it apparently does legitamize it now. It does not mean the actions were legitimate at the time the US and the coalition acted without a vote from the security council.


There was a section of 1441 that said the Security Council would remain appraised of the situation to determine if Iraq had wasted its last chance if I am not mistaken. You and I both know, that the council would not have approved any language that authorized the use of force, which is why we had terms like "serious consequences". It is still my contention that the Security Council clearly was to decide the consequences at a later time based on the language in 1441.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 02:00 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Dreadsox,


"1 Is there another governing body that can be defined as the authority?"

According to the UN, not in occupied Iraq.


"#2 You are right, it apparently does legitamize it now. It does not mean the actions were legitimate at the time the US and the coalition acted without a vote from the security council."

That is incorrect. The USA and other member states acted on the 15-0 vote from the security council months earlier.


"There was a section of 1441 that said the Security Council would remain appraised of the situation to determine if Iraq had wasted its last chance if I am not mistaken."

The Council did this. When Iraq failed to roll out the WMD and other materials, destroyed or still intact, say at the Baghdad international airport or some other area or facility, Iraq failed its last chance. Iraq was given one last chance to offer evidence to the UN inspectors that it had disarmed or in fact hand over the WMD. Iraq did neither.

The UN remained appraised of the situation, but there was nothing in the body of 1441 that said there had to be a second resolution before military action could begin.

"You and I both know, that the council would not have approved any language that authorized the use of force, which is why we had terms like "serious consequences"."

First, Bush went to the UN for resolution 1441 to give Iraq one last chance before the outbreak of war and to satisfy other governments around the world about going another mile for peace. From a strictly legal standpoint, the Bush Administration already had the legal authorization to invade Iraq prior to 1441 based on resulution 678. Not only does Resolution 678 authorize such military action, but the Clinton Administration had sited 678 in several of its military actions against Iraq.

You have to understand that "Serious Consequences" in this context is not some undefined term. Everything that was NOT military action was already being done to Iraq at the time. In light of that obvious fact, its clear what "Serious Consequences" means. Unless of course you can suggest something else that is not military action and was not being done to Iraq at the time, and could be seen as being serious enough to force the Iraqi government to comply with its obligations when it had failed to do so in light of their current actions(at that time) being taken against it.

Finally, everyone knew what Bush was planning to do and what the new UN resolution would mean prior to it even being written. If members did not agree with it, they could have vetoed it. Instead they voted 15-0 for a resolution that authorized Serious Consequences if Iraq failed its last chance. I have yet to see any country or anyone for that matter come up with a specific definition for "Serious Consequences" that did not involve military force. The obvious reason for that is that in this context, "Serious Consequences" can only mean one thing. Everything short of military force is being done. The only Consequence that Iraq could possibly suffer if it did not cooperate now, would be military force. There for, it is enough to simply mention "Serious Consequences" because such a term in this context can only mean one thing.

"It is still my contention that the Security Council clearly was to decide the consequences at a later time based on the language in 1441."

The problem with that contention is there was nothing to decide about. The only consequence that the international community could throw at Iraq at that point was military force. Everything else was being done. In addition, there is nothing in 1441 that says there needed to be another Security Council Vote.

I strongly feel that resolution 1483 which recognizes and approves US and UK occupation of Iraq and defines them as the authority, further proves that Operation Iraqi freedom was both legal and a UN operation.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 03:50 AM   #23
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Theres a standoff at a house, there's a whole bunch of cops outside all standing there with their guns drawn aiming at the house.
The chief is there with his megaphone and he orders "Come out with your hands up or we're coming in."
A minute later 3 of the cops start shooting and burst in.
Was the Chiefs threat to the occupier of the house the order to go in, or should the 3 cops have waited for the Chief to turn around and say "Ok, go in" as a seperate order?

I saw 1441 as the threat to Iraq "Do this, or else", but it wasn't the "Ok, they're not doing it, go get 'em" to those willing to do so.
I think the Coalition can in a way legitimize their actions by 1441, but in no way can call it a UN action.
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 07:02 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
"#2 You are right, it apparently does legitamize it now. It does not mean the actions were legitimate at the time the US and the coalition acted without a vote from the security council."

That is incorrect. The USA and other member states acted on the 15-0 vote from the security council months earlier.
Your interpretation. 1441 said that Iraq had one more chance and that it would remain appraised of the situation. The US acted before the Council had a chance to determine what serious consequences were.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
"There was a section of 1441 that said the Security Council would remain appraised of the situation to determine if Iraq had wasted its last chance if I am not mistaken."

The Council did this. When Iraq failed to roll out the WMD and other materials, destroyed or still intact, say at the Baghdad international airport or some other area or facility, Iraq failed its last chance. Iraq was given one last chance to offer evidence to the UN inspectors that it had disarmed or in fact hand over the WMD. Iraq did neither.

The UN remained appraised of the situation, but there was nothing in the body of 1441 that said there had to be a second resolution before military action could begin.
You and I disagree here. In our last debate before the war, I cited examples that demonstrated the that the Council was the only authority that could authorize the use of force. I cited articles that showed how vague language, using terms like "serious consequences" was being used to circumvent the will of the Council. The 15-0 vote did not anywhere say that the use of force was authorized. It did say the council would remain appraised to determine what action to take if Iraq did not follow through with its one more chance.

Quote:
"You and I both know, that the council would not have approved any language that authorized the use of force, which is why we had terms like "serious consequences"."

First, Bush went to the UN for resolution 1441 to give Iraq one last chance before the outbreak of war and to satisfy other governments around the world about going another mile for peace. From a strictly legal standpoint, the Bush Administration already had the legal authorization to invade Iraq prior to 1441 based on resulution 678. Not only does Resolution 678 authorize such military action, but the Clinton Administration had sited 678 in several of its military actions against Iraq.
Oncce one last chance is given, it was up to the Council to decide when that one last chance ended. Not the US. Show me a resolution that the Security Council passed that said their one last chance was used up, and I will agree that the other resolutions apply. Member states on the security council do not have the power individually to determine when the "One last chance" ran out. Only the Council had that legal obligation.

Quote:
ou have to understand that "Serious Consequences" in this context is not some undefined term. Everything that was NOT military action was already being done to Iraq at the time. In light of that obvious fact, its clear what "Serious Consequences" means. Unless of course you can suggest something else that is not military action and was not being done to Iraq at the time, and could be seen as being serious enough to force the Iraqi government to comply with its obligations when it had failed to do so in light of their current actions(at that time) being taken against it.

Finally, everyone knew what Bush was planning to do and what the new UN resolution would mean prior to it even being written. If members did not agree with it, they could have vetoed it. Instead they voted 15-0 for a resolution that authorized Serious Consequences if Iraq failed its last chance. I have yet to see any country or anyone for that matter come up with a specific definition for "Serious Consequences" that did not involve military force. The obvious reason for that is that in this context, "Serious Consequences" can only mean one thing. Everything short of military force is being done. The only Consequence that Iraq could possibly suffer if it did not cooperate now, would be military force. There for, it is enough to simply mention "Serious Consequences" because such a term in this context can only mean one thing.
Do I need to post the articles that I posted at the time, that clearly demonstrat that the language authorizing the use of force was removed? It was removed because they knew it would never pass. Just because the world knew what the intentions are does not remove the power of the security council to determine when the one last chance was up.

"It is still my contention that the Security Council clearly was to decide the consequences at a later time based on the language in 1441."

Quote:
"It is still my contention that the Security Council clearly was to decide the consequences at a later time based on the language in 1441."The pronlem with that contention is there was nothing to decide about. The only consequence that the international community could throw at Iraq at that point was military force. Everything else was being done. In addition, there is nothing in 1441 that says there needed to be another Security Council Vote.

I strongly feel that resolution 1483 which recognizes and approves US and UK occupation of Iraq and defines them as the authority, further proves that Operation Iraqi freedom was both legal and a UN operation. [/B]
That is not true. Pollack outlined many options besides military options.


1483 recognizes that there is no one else to deal with as far as Iraq is concerned. It was passed to give the Council some legitimate claim to power in the situation. It may very well retroactively legitimize what has happened, however, up until this time, the US acted outside of the UN and outside of 1441 in my opinion.

I have asked you to post legal opinions on 1441, and I have not seen any. I will once again post the legal opinions i have used.

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh92.htm http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh88.htm http://www.asil.org/ajil/lobel.htm http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh99a1.htm http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh99.htm http://www.asil.org/insights/insight1.htm

There is one link, that I have misplaced. I will attempt to post it later.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 03:27 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Dreadsox,

"Your interpretation. 1441 said that Iraq had one more chance and that it would remain appraised of the situation. The US acted before the Council had a chance to determine what serious consequences were."

Well thats your interpretation. The council already determined what "Serious Consequences" were by simply mentioning "Serious Consequenses". Thats because there is only one thing in the current situation that "Serious Consequenses" could mean. The only thing not being done to Iraq or had not been done to Iraq in the past is what happened with operation Iraqi Freedom.

"You and I disagree here. In our last debate before the war, I cited examples that demonstrated the that the Council was the only authority that could authorize the use of force. I cited articles that showed how vague language, using terms like "serious consequences" was being used to circumvent the will of the Council. The 15-0 vote did not anywhere say that the use of force was authorized. It did say the council would remain appraised to determine what action to take if Iraq did not follow through with its one more chance."

First, the Council already authorized the use of force in resolution 678. You could say vague language is used in all resolutions. Its obvious what the chief authors of Resolution 1441 had in mind. The 15-0 vote for 1441 reaffirmed resolution 678 which was apart of 1441. Reaffirming 678 by itself is enough to authorize the use of force. But then they threw in "Serious Consequenses" as well which should be clear to anyone what in means in light of everything being done to Iraq. In light of everything already being done to Iraq short of military force, "Serious Consequenses" can mean only one thing, military force. The council remained appraised of the situation but there was nothing in 1441 that said that a second resolution would be needed for military action.

"Oncce one last chance is given, it was up to the Council to decide when that one last chance ended. Not the US. Show me a resolution that the Security Council passed that said their one last chance was used up, and I will agree that the other resolutions apply. Member states on the security council do not have the power individually to determine when the "One last chance" ran out. Only the Council had that legal obligation."

Thats incorrect because it implies a certain timetable for Iraq to comply with the resolutions. The "one last chance" was based on cooperation, not on time. All it would take is for Saddam to finally say in writing or in a phone call where the WMD was or if it was destroyed, where the remains were. Saddam stuck to the contention that he had no WMD and had destroyed the remaining WMD from 1998-2002, but claimed that he could not show evidence of the destruction. Thats impossible and a flat lie. When Saddam chose to do that, he gave up "his one last chance to comply". No one had any intention of playing Saddams stupid games from the 1990s.

There never needed to be another resolution to say that Saddam had failed his last chance or to order military action. 1441 was a resolution that said "Do A or face B". The only consequence Iraq had yet to face was full scale military action. That is why "Serious Consequenses" means military force.

1441 was designed to be a final resolution against Saddam's regime, not the first of another 15. The Council already had determined the basis for failure by Saddam years ago. 1441 was the final warning.

"Do I need to post the articles that I posted at the time, that clearly demonstrat that the language authorizing the use of force was removed? It was removed because they knew it would never pass. Just because the world knew what the intentions are does not remove the power of the security council to determine when the one last chance was up."

No you don't because they are not proof that "Serious Consequenses" did not mean military force. In light of everything that was already being done to Iraq, "Serious Consequences" mean only one thing, military force. Given the context of the situation, the mere mention of any further consequence beyond what Iraq was experiencing or had experienced can mean only one thing.

"It is still my contention that the Security Council clearly was to decide the consequences at a later time based on the language in 1441."

For there to be a discussion or decision about what something means, there has to be multiple definitions of "Serious Consequences". In this context, the only consequence Iraq had not faced or was not facing was the large scale military action that they faced in Iraqi Freedom. Because that is the only consequence left, that is what "Serious Consequences" mean and there for, there is nothing to discuss or decide.

"That is not true. Pollack outlined many options besides military options."

Actually it is true, because all of Pollack's options, options that could be seen as consequences for Iraq, were already being done or had been done, with the exception of a full scale military invasion.

"1483 recognizes that there is no one else to deal with as far as Iraq is concerned. It was passed to give the Council some legitimate claim to power in the situation. It may very well retroactively legitimize what has happened, however, up until this time, the US acted outside of the UN and outside of 1441 in my opinion."

Well, one could only dispute the contention that the USA was not acting within the UN with the start of Iraqi freedom in mid March and up until last week when the latest resolution was passed. Thats a time period of 9 weeks where there are differences of whether the USA was acting within the UN or outside the UN.

I feel resolution 1483 has strenthened my arguements and weakened the opposing ones. It has further legitmized what the USA and other member states did. There is nothing in 1441 or 1483 that says or suggest that the USA and other member states acted outside the UN for the 9 weeks in question. In fact everything points to the fact that they were acting within the UN.


"I have asked you to post legal opinions on 1441, and I have not seen any. I will once again post the legal opinions i have used."

I have posted many of the legal opinions of the Bush Administration and State Department at various times. Sorry I have not posted any opinion from private lawyers or experts. I have formed my opinions based on many things you have posted and what the administration and State Department officials have said. I am well aware of the opinions of the lawyers here in the USA that you have sited and the opinions of the French and German governments. I've looked at their opinions and have found them to be wrong on the resolutions from 678 up to 1441. The US State Department and Government agree with my opinion. If I found an opinion from a private source that in some way presents my general view in a way that I might not have presented it, I'll post it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 04:39 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:31 AM
Sting as always it is a pleasure. We are not going to agree on this I think. I do sincerely have a desire to find info from the State Dept. and our Governement. DO you have any links to where they have posted their interpretations. I have not been able to find any.

Thanks
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 05:54 PM   #27
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Here is a little from 1483:

"Noting the letter of May 8, 2003 from the permanent representatives of the United States Of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of The Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the "Authority"),"

"Noting further that other States that are not occupying powers are working now or in the future may work UNDER the Authority"

1. It is clear from the above that the member states that contributed to the UN military operation to bring about Iraqi compliance with the resolutions are currently in control and authorized to have control of the situation in Iraq.

2. This resolution indeed approves of the actions of the past 3 months conducted by the US, UK, and Australia. There has never been any official mention by the United Nations in any document that Operation Iraqi Freedom was not a UN operation or in fact illegal. UN resolution 1441 authorized the use of that force. Resolution 1483 reafirm and approves the actions of Operation Iraqi Freedom done with the authorization from 1441. It recognizes the current occupation force and its Authority and the obligation of other member states to work UNDER that Authority.

3. I think in the future, Historians will note the strong opposition within the UN to Operation Iraq Freedom, but will view it as a UN operation in light of Resolutions 678, 687, 1441, and now 1483. In light of what 1483 recognizes its rather difficult for anyone now to dispute the fact that the past 3 months was a UN operation.
1. Right with a couple of corrections: a)"...that contributed to the US military operation"....b)"to bring about Iraqi compliance with the resolutions" - I would delete that
2. Wrong. Well, just wrong. There has never been any official mention by the UN that the war on Iraq was legal or a UN operation.
3.I'm sure you will be among those Hostorians I will be among the others

By the way, I think the UN would have never referred to its own troops as"occupation forces" or something like that. In the UN they prefer to use terms like "peacemaking", peacekeeping" and stuff like that, u know
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 08:24 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:31 AM
This was an interesting interview I just ran accross:

In a January interview, Richard Butler, the United Nations' former chief weapons inspector, said that a U.S. invasion of Iraq without a specific Security Council resolution would violate international law. What is your view on this?

I think it is certainly true that eight out of 10 international lawyers would say that would be a violation of international law. That view would also be supported by the legal advisers of most other countries in the United Nations. On the other hand, the United States has said from the beginning that it did in fact have authorization for the use of force, based on a string of resolutions going back to the original [Gulf War] ceasefire resolution in 1991.

And certainly it was clear in November under Resolution 1441 that we were reserving the right to act without a second Security Council resolution. The other members of the council were insisting that we should come back for a second vote. So this is an area in which the law is sufficiently undeveloped that I think you can reasonably agree to disagree. There's no question, however, that many, many, many other countries--the majority of other countries and certainly many of our European allies--will not see a unilateral American-led attack as explicitly authorized by the Security Council.

So, technically, a U.S. attack would fall within the rules of international law, but in practice it would be better to get Security Council authorization? And that's why the administration is seeking one?

Exactly. The best evidence that we think that, although we have a case it is not a very strong one, is that we are indeed going back and seeking additional authorization. If we were so sure of our case, we wouldn't even have needed Resolution 1441, much less an additional resolution.

In Resolution 1441, the administration settled for an ambiguous resolution that left open the question of force?

Yes, that's right. And the law here is a fluid thing. We are operating within the framework of the United Nations charter, which is in itself an extraordinary phenomenon [and] which not enough people have noticed. We are facing an enormous threat to global peace and security and we are operating through the United Nations. The United Nations mandates a political process operating within general rules and according to resolutions, but obviously there is going to be a lot of ambiguity there, and there is going to be a number of cases in which there are valid but disputed, competing interpretations.

Let's say the administration withdraws the second resolution because it doesn't have the nine votes needed for approval, or the resolution passes but the French veto it. What will be the effect on the Security Council if the United States invades anyway?

It depends enormously on what the vote looks like. If the United States has a majority and the French vetoes, then the United States will go ahead and will have the better of the legal argument, assuming the war is as the United States predicts--both short and successful. At that point, it will look as if the French thwarted a majority of the Security Council. If that is the scenario, I predict we will go ahead and the Security Council will then endorse what happened in the same way that it did after Kosovo in 1999, and the French will find a face-saving way to join that post-war consensus on the grounds that things were uncovered that they did not realize existed. That assumes we have a majority. If there is no majority, I predict that we will not actually let this resolution come to a vote.

What if you had the French and the Russians casting vetoes?

We are not likely to bring it to a vote on those terms either. I think we are quite confident with enough time we can both get a majority and have the Russians vote with us.

If we don't have a majority and we go ahead into Iraq, the president will probably claim that the Security Council didn't live up to its mandate. Do you agree with that?

No, and I am not sure I agree the president will actually say that. I think the administration will say the Security Council in the end could not agree but the Security Council will remain a player for us. But even if the president says it, I disagree. The Security Council and the United Nations, in general, are enormously important. We've been claiming their relevance is at stake. I think in September, Bush had a valid claim to make. The challenge to the Security Council then was: "If you're going to keep passing those resolutions, you have to mean what you say." And I think the Security Council did step up to the plate and pass a unanimous resolution with real teeth, insisting on inspections and insisting they make a difference. At this point, that kind of rhetoric by the president doesn't ring nearly so true. What's much more evident and important is that the United Nations will be a major player in the aftermath of any use of force.

We will go back to it and ask for some kind of United Nations force in the same way as we did after Kosovo in 1999, as we did after Afghanistan in 2001-02. All the United Nations agencies will be involved. It is unimaginable to think of doing this without the high commissioner for refugees, the high commissioner for human rights, all the expertise in peacekeeping and nation-building. We do not have that expertise--the United Nations and the European Union do--and we will need them both.

It seems a while since the United States had so few friends around the world. Do you agree?

We have been here before. Anyone who remembers being in Europe in 1982 with the massive, enormous demonstrations against the deployment of Pershing [tactical nuclear] missiles knows we have been through very bumpy times before. I think the stakes are higher now, precisely because this is unipolar rather than a bipolar system with the disappearance of the Soviet Union. There's a greater danger of other nations genuinely coalescing against us, so that although that I don't think it is unique--having many nations very opposed to us--I think the stakes are higher and we would do well to be more careful because a lot of the enmity and the political maneuvering could be reversed if we showed ourselves willing and able to stay with the multilateral process and to use it not only to go to war, but in the aftermath. So if we were to hang in [at] the Security Council until we got approval, which I think in another month we will get, we could do extraordinary things.

You never would have predicted in September that it would have taken until November to get Resolution 1441. If you remember that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in August and Vice President Dick Cheney right before the president's September 12 speech [to the United Nations] were saying "we're going to go" after Saddam now, it was remarkable the president would go to the United Nations. But no one expected we would seriously negotiate for two months. If this takes another month, it is well worth it if we get a resolution.

The president has spoken recently as if we were definitely going to war. But how much of the president's rhetoric is to scare the Iraqis into cooperating and how much is it because he actually means to go to war?

Everything he says sounds one way if you think his audience is the United States public and the Europeans and the rest of the United Nations community. It sounds a completely different way if you think his audience is Saddam Hussein and the Republican Guard. So when he says regime change is the objective, what he is saying is, if we go to war, you will not still be in office at the end of it. That is a very clear statement to both Saddam Hussein and his supporters. It sounds very different if the president is trying to put pressure on the Iraqis or to dictate to our European allies.


http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5646
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 10:50 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Dreadsox,

I'm sure there are links to the Presidents speaches on the topic and what Secretary of State Colin Powell has said in dozens and dozens of interviews somewhere. I have seen all these things in the course of reading other(non-internet) media and watching TV. I may have come across a policy paper that addresses this exact topic from a member of the administration or the State Department a few times in the past, but I do not have an internet link of the top of my head that has it. If you have not found anything at the relevant websites for the State Department and White House or maybe even a congressional member, then the only thing I can say is to use a good search engine with the right combination of words to dig out the topic.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-27-2003, 11:10 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:31 PM
ALEXRUS,



"1. Right with a couple of corrections: a)"...that contributed to the US military operation"....b)"to bring about Iraqi compliance with the resolutions" - I would delete that"

Nope, it was a UN operation to bring about compliance with the resolutions.


"2. Wrong. Well, just wrong. There has never been any official mention by the UN that the war on Iraq was legal or a UN operation."

Wrong again. 1441 authorized the military action. 1483 officially recognizes the current occupation which further legitimizes and approves the operation that brought about the current occupation.

"3.I'm sure you will be among those Hostorians I will be among the others"

Thats just fine. But in 10 years when Iraq is a growing democracy, when people look back, the 9 weeks(March 19 to May 22) where there was controversy about the legality and role of the UN in the war and aftermath, will be a tiny footnote at most. I'm sure the Russians, Germans, and French won't be harping about it and will probably dodge the issue if it comes up which most likely it won't. I base that on their current approval and recognition of the current member states that occupy Iraq there by legitimizing the actions that the member states took to bring about that occupation.

The terms used to describe the forces in Iraq by the UN are not really any different than terms that have been used in the past such as the first Gulf War. But thats really irrelevant since the UN has officially recognized and approved the current force there in addition to authorizing the action back in November of last year.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com