If this deal doesn’t allow access to everywhere, including palaces and mosques then it is useless.
This is excellent news and shows that diplomacy can triumph at the end of the day. It seems certain now that the Bush administration has lost the argument as regards to military intervention, to do so now would mean blatantly disregarding International Law.
Btw ‘utd’, you forgot to put a link to your topic so here it is below.
Iraq agrees to return of U.N. arms inspectors](http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1520912)
This is the expected song and dance from Saddam. US should proceed to press UN for a resolution with teeth that forces Saddam to disarm. As soon as pressure for a new resolution stops, Saddam's palaces and other culturally sensitive places are going to be declared off limits.
Blix said:
"The Iraqi representatives declared that Iraq accepts all rights of inspection provided for in all the relevant Security Council resolutions," Blix told reporters after two days of talks.
Sounds like loopholes galore waiting to be sprung. The old resolutions are really not good enough now. Powell is absolutely right: UN will absolutely need to pass a new resolution that will give Blix and his team a lot more power to inspect and disarm.
Talking about the UN Security Council, two US congressmen have called for the IMMEDIATE end to the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq.
Iraq sanctions must end, say US Congressmen](http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s688911.htm)
Two US Congressmen visiting Iraq have called for an end to United Nations sanctions in place since the Gulf War in 1991.
**After a day inspecting the humanitarian situation in Iraq, Michigan Democrat David Bonior called the sanctions barbaric, saying they had caused horrific suffering, particularly for Iraqi children. **
Congressman Bonior says the issue should be resolved with the return of UN weapons inspectors. “The absolute necessity to end the sanctions and of course that is tied with making sure there is fair, open and unrestricted inspections, so that it all works together,” he said.
“And we will make our case as we are now, when we return to the States, and we will also try, to the extent that we can, to be helpful to the children who need the medicine.”
France, China and Russia have already rejected the US demands for intervention and made it publically known their opposition to the US plans.
An article about this is at : France, Russia castigate US invasion plan](France, Russia castigate US invasion plan)
The dispute in the United Nations over Iraq worsened yesterday when France and Russia launched diplomatic strikes on the United States over its apparent determination to invade Baghdad if Saddam Hussein interfered with the work of weapons inspectors.
France’s Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, said the US’s stated goal of “regime change” in Baghdad was “against international law”.
so umm are these ppl with us or against us? shoud'nt W make a call. try those objecting senators and basically entire democratic party for treason..attack UN as well. after all seems like they aint wid us y'all
Pir Saheb, go a little easy on the southern twang. We Texans aint all bad people you know.
Everyone wants to go into Hussein's palaces to check for nuclear weapons. Fair enough. If Hussein does really possess arsenals of WMD in his palaces, then doesn't that send a signal to us - that, somewhere in the past twelve years, we have been doing something grossly wrong vis-a-vis our policy towards Iraq. Surely, if Hussein possesses these frightful weapons - which is the whole official US reason for invading Iraq - the sanctions have been a colossal disaster? Have they targeted the government? No. Have they targeted the most vulnerable? Yes, for the past twelve years.
When will the above be acknowledged?
I don't think it's that simple of an answer Nadia, The sanctions have been punishing on the Iraqi people but it has also been punishing on Saddams WMD program (slowed it down at the very least). That said, the sanctions have brought havoc and despair to the Iraqi people and there needs to be a better way.
Have the smart sanctions been a total failure in aiding the Iraqi population?
All is well that ends well... Bombing Iraq is not a solution as civilians may die, it is true that Saddam is powerful and it would take something to get rid of him, but some localized military action or something like that would be enough... No all out attack would be necessary.
Its about time Saddam hides his harems beneath his palaces ;) - Late night with Conon was mocking him yesterday, it was funny...
If the war starts, which side would the majority of Iraqis (namely Shias – who make up more than ½ of Iraqi population) support? Hussain or Bush? I know Kurds will be happy to see Saddam get killed, but what about Shias?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
If the war starts, which side would the majority of Iraqis (namely Shias – who make up more than ½ of Iraqi population) support? Hussain or Bush? I know Kurds will be happy to see Saddam get killed, but what about Shias?
[/QUOTE]
Iran wants Saddam out, and Iraqi Shia opposition still pays attention to what Iran wants. So my bet is that they want Saddam out, but they are not going to risk being in the lead.
The Arab league has called for international support for the current UN-Iraq agreement for the return of UN arms inspectors.
Arab League says don’t hinder Iraq-U.N. deal](http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1523939)
CAIRO, Oct 2 (Reuters) - The Arab League urged the world community on Wednesday not to take positions that might hinder a deal agreed between U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraq.
“The success of the inspectors’ mission will be linked to the cooperation of the Iraqi government and the extent of the support the inspection team gets from the international community by not taking any positions which hinder inspections,” Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said in a statement. …
UTD,
No, smart sanctions have not been a TOTAL failure.
However it is a stop-gap measure, at the very best. Another of my lousy analogies - it's like someone kicking a puppy and then justifying it by saying, Well at least i didn't kill it all the way.. --> that's the worst analogy i've used thus far, sorry just can't think at the present moment of a better one. >>[The sanctions] have been punishing on Saddams WMD program (slowed it down at the very least)<< - how can you state this while simultaneously believing in the validity of Blair's dossier (that states Hussein has secretly built up a huge arsenal of WMD)? If the sanctions were truly working, then why would we feel the need today to go check his palaces? If we believe he's got something worth hiding in his palaces, then that proves the sanctions have not worked thus far.
This is what I was talking about yesterday, and it is in today’s NYTimes op-ed. How can the world (specifically the Arab World) just stand by and let 2/3rd of a country’s population be ruled by a small dictatorial minority? Same is pretty much the case in Syria as well. US should make sure that they include Shias in the new power structure in post Saddam Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/opinion/03SMYT.html
Iraq’s Forgotten Majority
By FRANK SMYTH
WASHINGTON — Last month, President Bush invoked the prospect of a democratic Iraq in his address to the United Nations General Assembly, while Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress that he foresaw “a government of Iraqis governing Iraqis in a democratic fashion.” Yet the administration remains closest to Sunni Arabs, a minority group of Iraqis that has never shared power. This does not bode well for a stable post-Hussein Iraq.
Sunni Arabs, including Saddam Hussein and most Iraqis in the American-backed opposition, account for no more than 16 percent of the Iraqi population; they dominate central Iraq as far south as Baghdad. Ethnic Kurds, who are also Sunni Muslims, make up about 20 percent of Iraq’s population and are concentrated in the mountainous north. But nearly two-thirds of Iraqis are Shiite Muslims, and they populate the slums of Baghdad as well as the south of Iraq. Unlike Kurds and others in the northern no-flight zone, who have received a proportionate share of Iraqi revenues under the United Nations-administered oil-for-food program, Iraqis in the vast southern zone have suffered greatly from a decade of sanctions. Saddam Hussein, of course, is entirely willing to let them suffer.
Shiite Muslims would be the largest voting bloc in any democratic Iraq. This is why the Bush administration must find a way to integrate them into its Iraq planning, something it has so far failed to do. It is also a principal reason why Saddam Hussein has suppressed Shiism. In recent years Saddam Hussein has hand-picked one Shiite cleric after another to lead the Shiite community, only to see each one defy him — and be murdered quickly thereafter. In a shooting spree beginning in 1998, one top Iraqi Shiite cleric after another was gunned down. Iraq’s last grand ayatollah, Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, was murdered with his two sons on a road near Najaf. Another powerful cleric, Hussain Bahr al-Uloom, died under mysterious circumstances last year.
It is Shiites who have most consistently fought Saddam Hussein since 1991, when Shiite clerics called for an uprising. “The Shia uprising in the south was far more dangerous than the Kurdish insurgency in the north,” one eyewitness later reported to the State Department. Although the small and disastrous northern uprising in 1996 had no exact counterpart in the south, a Shiite group attacked Mr. Hussein’s eldest son, Uday, that year and crippled him. In 1998 Shiite rebels attacked Mr. Hussein’s second in command, Izzat Ibrahim.
American officials have long been reluctant to work with Iraqi Shiites out of fear that they might be too close to Iran, where the Shiite faith predominates. But Iraqi and Iranian Shiites are not as close as it might seem. The Iraqis are Arabs and the Iranians are Persian. They also, with some exceptions, follow very distinct and sometimes hostile forms of Shiism: Akhbari in Iraq, Usuli in Iran. Akhbari Shiism has never promoted political rule, while the Usuli school produced the politically active caste of priests that is a distinctive feature of Iranian Shiism.
Iraqi Shiites demonstrated their independence from Iranian Shiites in 1980 after Iraq invaded Iran. A Central Intelligence Agency report noted in 1991 that Iraq’s Shiites “rejected Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini’s concept of velayat-e faqui (political rule by a supreme religious leader) and remained loyal to Baghdad during the eight-year war with Iran.”
Despite a lack of political connection, Iraq’s most important Shiite clerics survive in exile in Iran today. Only in August did Bush administration officials meet with the brother of Shiite leader Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, head of the influential Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is based in Tehran. This is only a small step toward forming a representative anti-Hussein coalition.
For the most part, the Bush administration continues to work with Sunni groups. Among the Iraqi opposition, the State Department is closer to the Iraqi National Accord, while the Defense Department is closer to the Iraqi National Congress. Both groups are dominated by Sunni Arabs (although the president of the congress, Ahmad Chalabi, has a Shiite mother). The Iraqi National Congress is far more active in Washington and another congress leader, al-Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, in August announced his proposal to restore the Iraqi monarchy, which was installed by Britain in 1921 and lasted just 37 years. The Sunni Arab-led kingdom was never popular with either the Shiite majority or the Kurds.
The Bush administration can gain political credibility for its actions on Iraq only by engaging all groups there. Iraqi Shiites in exile in London and Tehran are seeking reassurances that, after Saddam Hussein, they would for the first time enjoy their fair share of power. Meanwhile, leaders of the Kurdish minority recently told American journalists that a unified, representative Iraq is what they want. Any viable outcome must also address the concerns of Iraq’s neighbors, particularly Turkey and Iran.
One possibility for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq is a decentralized state with considerable regional autonomy, including the division of oil revenues to ensure adequate budgets for provincial development. This could be the only way to keep the nation together. But getting there would require talking directly to leaders of all three population groups. No plan will work that does not take into account the nearly two-thirds of Iraqis who are Shiites.
Frank Smyth has written frequently on Iraq.
Jack Straw here brings to mind George Orwell: Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
Straw: UK and US ready to act alone, Staff and agencies
The Guardian, 18 October 2002
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, today made clear that Britain and the US were prepared to go it alone with military action against Iraq, if they failed to secure a new UN mandate on weapons inspections.
The US is due to present the text of a proposed new draft resolution, strengthening the inspections regime, to the five permanent members of the UN security council in New York later today.
Although reports have suggested the wording has been toned down since an earlier draft resolution circulated by Britain and the US, it is still thought to provide the authority for military action if Iraq fails to comply.
That approach has been strongly resisted by the French who want the security council to vote on a second resolution specifically authorising military action if Iraq refuses to cooperate with the UN inspectors.
Mr Straw, while insisting both Britain and the US remained committed to the “UN route”, warned they reserved the right to act alone if the security council tried to block military action in the event of a “flagrant breach” of the inspections requirements by Iraq.
“We reserve the right to act within international law in respect of the use of force, which may or may not be covered by a new resolution,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
"It is entirely appropriate for America, as for us, to reserve their position if the UN does not meet its responsibilities.
"We are completely committed to the UN route if that is successful.
“If, for example, we end up being vetoed on statements, which are as plain as daylight that Iraq is in flagrant breach of UN resolutions, then of course we are in a different situations,” he said.
His comments appeared designed to intensify pressure on France and the other security council members to accept the proposed US resolution or risk the UN’s authority being undermined by Britain and America acting alone.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
I don't think it's that simple of an answer Nadia, The sanctions have been punishing on the Iraqi people but it has also been punishing on Saddams WMD program (slowed it down at the very least). That said, the sanctions have brought havoc and despair to the Iraqi people and there needs to be a better way.
Have the smart sanctions been a total failure in aiding the Iraqi population?
[/QUOTE]
A saction should affect not just slow down things. It did punish the IRAQI ppl more than anything else.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *
Iran wants Saddam out, and Iraqi Shia opposition still pays attention to what Iran wants. So my bet is that they want Saddam out, but they are not going to risk being in the lead.
[/QUOTE]
Iran can not afford Saddam to be killed otherwise all eyes will be on IRAN.