Another day, another win: UN Unanimously approves US Resolution on Iraq

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
41

Perdaisibaboo, aye that i do.

>>Do you think that its possible that "those in the know? in the U.S. who originally supplied Iraq with weapons might have non-publically-documented evidence that Iraq is holding and building weapons of mass destruction?<<
AvgAmericanGirl, regarding your queries: if they do, then does that make the suppliers of these harmful weapons guilty in the first place for selling to a dictatorship?

>>Do you think Saddam is capable of using one?<<
There is only one country that has utilized the most harmful weapon so far (here's a clue: it's not Iraq). Hussein has utilized weapons of mass destruction previously; we must ask ourselves why it was silently tolerated during that time while today it serves as an argument for invading Iraq, a country let's bear in mind with 22 million individual civilians?

>>If it's economic, do you think that allowing Iraq free trade would benefit the Iraqi's as well as Americans?<<
All the benefits of Iraqi oil must, first and foremost, proceed towards the people of Iraq. Period. Iraqi resources in Iraqi, not foreign, control. The country is, according to the majority of objective sources - including even UN Security Council reports - in a dire state vis-a-vis its educational, medical, and sewage infrastructures. In my humble opinion, any revenues accruing from the proceeds of Iraq's oil deserve to be re-invested within the country, not anywhere else.

42

N.

Absolutely Guilty. A HUGE Mistake. And eyes covered up when some of them were used? Horrid.

I don't support invading Iraq. I don't understand why more citizens in this country don't demand proof of that the country of Iraq is an imminent threat, and proof that the Iraqi Regime supports terrorism. And require that the U.S. government provide tangible evidence to support its stance.

Not Speeches. Tangible evidence.

And provide the U.S. people with answers as to what the ultimate goal is? And the cost to rebuild Iraq? And tangible proof that we will help to better the lives of Iraqi's if we say so in a speech.

And..broadcast Aljezeera in English. If we can provide subsidies to Israli broadcast corp, and even Palestinian broadcast corp, (as long as don't claim Jerusalem as their capitol), then we can surely afford to pay a translator.

And yes. The U.S. is guilty of using weapons of mass destruction. Absolutely. Though, I will have to state that I don't think they truly realized in 1945 the extent of the damage the bomb would do, however once it was known, another should not have been dropped.

(Although Japan was forewarned, and knew what would happen, so its fair I think to say that they share in the guilt for the 2nd bomb.)
Not that its excusable.

And I agree again N. Absolutely the majority of economic gain should go to the people of Iraq. I was just thinking more on the order that investments would assist in the economic recovery and stability, which would also create jobs, which would benefit all.

43

iraq iraqi people and saddam havebeen indias friends since a very long time and this continued even during and after the 1991 Gulf war.i am against of any kind of action against iraq and its people but i will support any action to oust saddam from power.this is mainly due to the fact that saddam has clear links with many terrorist groups including Al-Quaida.

  any new development,inclined to war will force lakhs of indians flee Gulf and that will adversely affect the aready crippling economy of my state.but any move to topple saddam out of power will lead to a full scale war as iraqi military leadership will bring such a move close to any kind of war.so what i think isa war is inevitable.what u.s and its allies will be thinking is,they can best use of the situation and no wonder if they asked saddam to dispose his throne.

  its yet to wait and see iraq accepting the resolution  but saddam well knows the fact that a teethless iraq will be more vulnerable to his own extinction from power and public life(or his own life?).so a wise saddam will only try to instigate the flames of nationalism(both iraqi and arab)among his own people and try and defend the u.s and its allies.

anyway the war is inevitable...........................

44

Nadia writes:
"What a pity that no one has yet replied to my query regarding whether anyone is in support of universally applying international laws and mandates - including paragraph 14 of Iraq's first disarmament resolution, Security Council Resolution 687, adopted in 1991. (Naturally, going by the silence, that calls for the disarmament of Israel). "

The problem, Nadia, is not with the concept of "universally applying international laws and mandates". I'm sure that 8 or 9 out of 10 people on every side of every issue whould answer that with a resounding yes. The problem is really finding an overwhelming (if not unanimous) understanding of what consititutes an "international law or mandate" and, more importantly, what constitutes a violation thereof. The unique thing about Iraq is that 15 Members of the UN Security council can all agree what the past Iraqi resolutions mean and that Saddam and Iraq have breached those Resolutions (I know this is something you just don't understand as you see things quite differently).

Just as a for instance, most America and Israeli bashers seem to think that all you need to do is throw out "Resolution 242" and it should be understood and agreed that Israeli is in breach thereof. Therefore, you think the UN ought to be consistent and do something to Israel to enforce the Resolution. There are many people (myself included) who have carefully investigated the issue and find that UN Resolution 242 imposes duties upon BOTH the Israelis and the Palestinians. The duties of each party under that resolution are contingent upon good faith performances by the other party. Not the least of which is a requirement to negotiate final borders and boundaries. (We've debated this in many other threads and I don't want to pollute this thread by resurrecting that debate here. If you want to discuss it again, maybe open another thread). Therefore, enforcing 242 would require UN action against both parties and I just don't think you could find unanimity among the Security Council or even people like you and me as to the appropriate actions to be taken against both parties.

The Iraq Resolutions are specific as to performance and goals and impose specific duties on Iraq. Therefore, there is a reasonable basis to proceed with enforcement. The goal of a lasting negotiated peace along mutually acceptable borders is not specific and it is virtually impossible to take any action that will force two recalcitrant parties to negotiate in good faith and/or to negotiate mutually acceptable borders.

The lesson, I think, is that if the UN Security Council wishes to enact Resolutions capable of enforcement, it needs to get unanimous or near unanimous agreement up front as to what the final objective is and the specific performances it demands from the party or parties subject to the Resolution. It then needs to be very specific in its Resolutions as to what the party or parties need to do to avoid UN future UN action.

45

MyVoice,

You are accurate that 242 is another issue worthy of another thread. i just can’t help mentioning here that, just today, there is a good write-up in the Guardian (yep, that most leftish of newspapers) regarding 242 which i’ll just attach as a link. It deals specifically with some of the technicalities i felt you almost brought up in your post. There may be duties imposed upon both parties, but you cannot deny that 242 has explicity called for the “withdrawal of Israel’s armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. Irrespective of the deliberate semantics, Israel is clearly in violation of not withdrawing its forces from those territories it has been occupying.

Anyhow, reverting to the relevant topic at hand - you stated that, The Iraq Resolutions are specific as to performance and goals and impose specific duties on Iraq. Yet again, i am afraid i completely fail to see how you arrived at this conclusion. :confused: How have the Resolutions vis-a-vis Iraq been specific as to the “goals” on Iraq? If anything, there has been a lack of consistency. Sometimes it is claimed that ‘all Iraq has to do is comply’ with regards to its disarmament obligations; sometimes, it’s nothing short of Hussein’s outright removal from power that will satisfy particular war mongerers. How is this being specific? Even during Clinton’s first term in office, we were being informed that, regardless of whatever Iraq did to comply with its legal obligations, the US would STILL retain the sanctions for as long as Hussein was in power. For heavens’ sake! In which Resolution was this authorized?

i can go on and on about this issue, but really at the present moment, i do not feel like doing so. i am exhausted of propounding this issue. Speaking personally, i consider myself not at the extreme end of any political or religious spectrum, and i believe i do consciously bear in mind to be open-minded towards others and respect their beliefs however greatly i disagree inside. But truly, MyVoice, i am just amazed at the current state of affairs vis-a-vis Iraq and how anyone with rational faculties can continue to endorse this policy. If, even today, after 12 years, the Security Council has had to draft and vote on a new Resolution, then surely, surely, that signifies that the past 12 year policy towards Iraq has been a failure? What have we gained with US policies vis-a-vis Iraq - 12 years later onwards, we are STILL drafting further Resolutions, imposing yet further demands that are deliberately designed to provoke a state of non-cooperation - all for what ? So that 1.5 million civilians - men, women, children - would die ? In the 10 minutes it has taken me to write this silly reply to yourself, one child has already died in Iraq. Even i myself am not Iraqi, nor even Arab - but at least, when it comes to the death of an innocent child, i think superficial aspects such as religion or nationality should take a backseat.

Please do ask yourself - what have we gained with our policies towards Iraq? Absolutely nothing. Most of the world wept for the 2000 civilians who lost their lives on 9-11. Since 1991, there’s been a 9-11 every month in Iraq. Every single month - one 9-11. Of course this is where you say it’s Saddam’s fault, and i say it’s the Security Council’s.

It just amazes me sometimes how desensitized we can become to acts of such sheer cruelty, depending upon our geographical and cultural proximities to the civilians involved.

46

Nadia:
Just a brief word on 242 before going into more relevant topics. While you correctly cite the verbage of 242, you ignore that the interpretation of that language is NOT agreed upon. I have previously posted links demonstrating that, when enacted, the UN Security Council did NOT mean ALL the territories. The proposed draft of 242 which did contain such language was amended to exclude that language. Thus, while the Security Council agreed (and still does) that Israel should withdraw from most or almost all of the territories, the actual withdrawal was to be to borders which were to be negotiated in good faith between the parties. Further, the withdrawal was to accomplished within the context of a broad peace. All that for another thread though. The relevant point for this thread is that the UN Resolution did not have unanimity in interpretation at the time it was enacted which prevents enforcement because the Members of the Security Council differ as to what would constitute enforcement.

You write: “If, even today, after 12 years, the Security Council has had to draft and vote on a new Resolution, then surely, surely, that signifies that the past 12 year policy towards Iraq has been a failure?” Yes and No. It has not accomplished all that was intended but, then again, qualitatively and quantitatively Saddam’s war machine and stockpile of WMD is undoubtedly less today than it would have been without sanctions. You ask: “Please do ask yourself - what have we gained with our policies towards Iraq?” That’s your answer. Partial success.

The byproduct of Saddam’s recalcitrance in the face of Sanctions has led to the unintended deaths of lots and lots of Iraqi civilians. A terrible, terrible failure.

However, you seem to think the only way to end the deaths of innocent Iraqis is to give in to Saddam. The same Resolution that just passed should have (could have) been passed 6 years ago. The UN should have demonstrated its resolve a long time ago and the deaths of those Iraqis probably would have been avoided. Better late than never. The sooner Iraq disarms pursuant to the new Resolution or gets forcibly disarmed by military might, the better. What the people of Iraq cannot be subjected to is a continuation of the death waltz that has been going on for way too many years.

The questions regarding whether or not Clinton or the “war mongers” will be satisfied with less than a change in regime is really beside the point IF the topic is the clearness and conciseness of previous UN Resolutions regarding Iraq. For goodness sake, even Syria is in agreement that Saddam is in material breach of the obligations imposed upon him by prior Resolutions. While the world may disagree as to what to do about them, it again stands united in its belief that Iraq has not complied. You stand in an extremely small circle of those believing differently. You may not be at the “extreme end of any political or religious spectrum,” but you are at the extreme end on this issue (2 entirely different things).

I would find you much more moderate and have a tendency to want to understand your position better if you (1) admitted that Saddam is a monster to his own people and an aggressive tyrant that poses a danger to his neighbors; (2) stated firmly the belief that Saddam is the last guy in the world that should be allowed to develop and maintain an arsenal of WMD; (3) acknowledged that it is Saddam’s response to the Sanctions over the last 10 years or so that have largely contributed to the deaths of the Iraqis that you mourn today; and (4) admitted the Iraqi people would, in all likelihood, be better off without him. Then, I would try to understand why you oppose military action against Iraq and be in favor of lifting sanctions.

But, you entirely lose me when you stand on the fringe claiming that Saddam is really not that bad a guy, that he did wonderful things for his people before sanctions, that he was once a US friend, that the UN Sanctions and Resolutions against Iraq only represent the feelings of the US, that Iraq has complied with all UN Resolutions, that Iraq has no WMD, and that the blood of all those dead Iraqis is solely on the hands of the US and its allies.