UN and Iraq

[olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org]

I think Shaun and I have now stated our respective arguments with 
enough clarity. For the sake of completeness, I will simply restate my 
position.

Contrary to Shaun, I keep thinking that the war as it unfold was 
illegal. I acknowledge Shaun's rationale that shooting at aircrafts in 
the no-fly zone is technically a casus belli. I am in the opinion that 
the US, UK and France, as the aggressors, had to prove first that 
flying aircrafts above Iraq was legal. If casus belli they was, I think 
an argument can be made that it was on their side.

It is certainly true that inspectors were not happy about their working 
condition. However, Richard Butler, whom Shaun mentioned, Hans Blix, 
Scott Ritter and Mohammed El Baradei all opposed the war and stressed 
that though not perfect, the inspection regime was working. Indeed, no 
weapons of mass destruction of any significant efficiency have been 
found since.

I would like to outline one last time what my ideal situation would 
have been. I would have liked the inspectors to be asked clearly if 
they were in favor of invasion, limited strike (à la Desert Fox) or 
simply continued inspections. In the case where they would have said 
they were in favor of invasion, I would have liked the US and UK to 
present a resolution clearly outlining what they were going to do, 
including post-war situation. If France had vetoed such a resolution 
(supported by the inspectors and voted by a majority of the Security 
Council that is), I would have been the first to call it a shame.

However, what happened is so far away from my ideal world, that I must 
confess I have some doubts about the real motivations of the invading 
forces. Doubts I think many people share and that render the whole 
discussion about whether the war was or wasn't legal a bit surreal.

But it is always a pleasure to listen to educated arguments. If only 
for that reason, I would like to thank Shaun for this discussion.

Regards,
Olivier