UN and Iraq

[olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org]

Shaun
 > Under international law, it is, in fact, very likely that the
 > invasion of Iraq was legal - whether it should have been or not is
 > another question. But the 1990/91 law ended in a cease fire that
 > was contingent on Iraq acceding to certain demands. Iraq failed to
 > accede to those demands and under international laws relating to
 > cease fires, that means the war can continue. Further US and other
 > nations aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones were fired upon on
 > numerous occasions by Iraqi troops. In international law,
 > deliberately targeting the military assets of a nation is a clear
 > casus belli.
 >
 > The major issue in international law is Iraq's repeated violation
 > of the cease fire agreement which was put in place in 1991. It
 > wasn't just one violation, it was numerous violations, and the
 > requirement for Iraq to comply was stated and restated by the
 > Security Council on several occasions, so it wasn't a dead issue.

I am not an expert in international law, so I formed my opinion by 
referring to scholarly resources. On that particular point, I quoted 
from Phyllis Bennis, a researcher at the Institute for Policy Studies. 
You can hear her whole statement on the controversy on 
www.fair.org/counterspin
According to her, the resolutions condemning Iraq explicitly stated 
what should happen if Iraq violated them, and, still according to her, 
in that case, the Security Council had to decide what consequences 
would follow. This did not happen. The US decided alone that they would 
go to war.

Mrs. Bennis also addresses the claim about the no-fly zones. According 
to her, they are not explicitly part of the resolution, so they cannot 
be used as a reason for military intervention. I would rather believe 
her on that one, as I personally worked for the US Air Force in Saudi 
Arabia during the no-fly zone period and I do remember legal issues 
were raised from times to times.

At any rate, and without entering a subtle discussion on international 
law, it is clear that violation of a UN resolution is not a sufficient 
reason to make an invasion legal. If it were, I am afraid Israel could 
be invaded any time.

 > That is correct - but if France hadn't been willing to veto, it is
 > likely that at least 9 of the 15 nations involved, possibly more,
 > would have supported the UN Resolution. A significant number were
 > not willing to support it unless France was, because a situation in
 > which the Security Council rendered a majority vote, only to have
 > it vetoed by France, could have damaged the Security Council almost
 > beyond repair. And that was not worth risking.

Surely you cannot believe that Shaun. There has been instance of an 
unanimous Security Council resolution vetoed by only one member. The 
only damage it would have done would have been to France. I would have 
been the first to call it a shame, had France vetoed an otherwise 
unanimous resolution. Indeed, I suspect it has happened during the war 
in Algeria, and it was one of the most shameful time in french history. 
Anyway, it is hard to know what would have happened. We know what did 
happen. And on the basis of what did happen, I don't see any reason to 
blame any country for blocking the diplomatic process.

 > Iraq was under sanctions for over a decade. These sanctions were
 > largely intended to force his removal from office. They didn't
 > succeed.

I was rather referring to cutting support from dictators we support. 
Not enemies. I, for one, would be glad to see France ending its support 
to the current tunisian regime. It is possible that some americans feel 
it would be sensible to stop supporting the Saudi monarchy.

 >
 > There's nothing wrong with trying those methods - because there are
 > rare occasions, where they are successful. But when you've tried
 > them for 12 years, and they haven't done any good, it's time to do
 > something else.
 >

But the UN did something else. Inspectors were working in Iraq just 
prior the war. And they were quite satisfied with their working 
condition (largely because of military threat, but still). Was it worth 
it to engage in a war which killed one thousand Americans and more than 
12,000 iraqi civilians?


 > International law does not ensure peace.  In fact the number of
 > wars increased every decade between the 1940s and the 1990s.

They don't, but it's the only thing we have. So I would be in favor of 
following them.

 > And while Kuwait is certainly no bastion of freedom, it has never
 > compared to Iraq under Saddam Hussein - Iraq used chemical weapons
 > on its own citizens in acts of deliberate genocide. There are
 > plenty of other dictatorships in the world - but relatively few
 > have been as brutal as Saddam Hussein's.

I didn't mean to draw a parallel between Kuwait and Iraq. All I wanted 
to say is that if it becomes legal to invade a dictatorship, many 
countries would be in jeopardy. I picked Kuwait, but could have chosen 
dozens of other countries.

Regards,

Olivier