From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Wed Feb 26 2003 - 02:54:53 MST
Wei Dai writes:
[correcting my mistake on the following]
> > (I provide the above just as background for those
> > interested and point out that because the Security Council
> > met "closed-door" the two plans are not available for public
> > viewing.
>
> The US/Britain/Spain draft resolution is posted at
> http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/othr/17937.htm, and it just says:
I stand corrected on the plan not being publicly available. This
is good news. I think with the draft plan on the table it is much
easier to work on solutions. Thanks for the correction.
> OP1: Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded
> to it in resolution 1441 (2002);
I still think my argument that it is for the Security Council to decide when
the final opportunity as described in 1441 is at an end. I still think the
reasoning is valid on that point.
>
> OP2: Decides to remain seized of the matter.
So did point 14 of 1441. It is because the Security Council
remains "seized of the matter" in 1441 that I don't think the
US can act unilaterally (or with a new coalition of the willing -
the UN itself was founded as a coalition of the willing) act
outside it without breaching the Charter.
>
> Here's an article which says that the Security Council must
> explicitly authorize force against Iraq for an invasion to be legal:
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2880 i
> It argues that just saying Iraq is in material breach isn't enough.
> It seems to me that the proposed U.S. resolution isn't really
> sufficient either.
Thanks I'll check it out.
>
> What do you think the consequences will be if the U.S. does
> decide to breach the U.N. charter and invade Iraq without an
> explicit authorization from the Security Council?
This is still some time away, now that the draft resolution is on
the table and there is time to focus minds, there is I think a real
chance to make this whole exercise an extropic one. I.E. It is
possible that the Security Council may be able to rise up a notch.
It certainly seems to me that having a working Security Council
in the UN version 2.0 is better for the US than no UN at all - the
US would have to rebuild a "new Union" as a foreign policy
priority if the old could not be preserved. A world with a majority
of the worlds open societys governments and the majority of
the worlds open society citizens disenfranchised is not a
sustainable proposition. We already have better than that now.
And such runs counter to the sort of confidence that makes
globalisation work even economically. The better solution is a
better UN not no UN.
> BTW, isn't the U.S. already in breach of the
> U.N. charter by enforcing the no-fly zones, which were never
> authorized by the Security Council?
I don't know I haven't checked.
> What about the 1989 Panama invasion, which was not
> authorized by the Security Council either?
I don't know I haven't checked.
> I haven't been able to find any amendments to the U.N. charter.
> Do any exist?
I don't know. I have been presuming the Charter at the UN
home page is the current article. If it is not that could be very
significant.
> For example has the Security Council chapter been amended to
> change one of the permanent members from the Soviet Union to
> Russia?
I think so. There is a list of Members of the United Nations
at the UN Web site and the Soviet Union has been replaced by the
Russian Federation. I also think I can recall this being talked about
years when the Soviet Union was dissembled.
- Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 26 2003 - 02:31:17 MST