From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Thu Feb 27 2003 - 01:32:26 MST
Wei Dai writes:
> Instead of replying to your long post, which seems
> to mostly repeat what you wrote earlier,
Sorry about that. There was a lot of repetition. But given
the gloom in the downside that there is also a significant
upside opportunity is I think worth repeating a bit. I haven't
heard much said in the media about a possible upside for the
United Nations from this process.
> let me point to this essay written by Richard
> Holbrooke, who was U.S. ambassador to the United
> Nations under President Clinton. He argues that we don't
> need a second resolution, and shouldn't have asked for one.
Actually he doesn't lay out any line of reasoned argument for
not needing a second resolution he just states it. I disagree with
his conclusion.
There will be lots of disagreement about whether a new resolution
is required right up until a new resolution is signed. That is part of
the politics of spin. Spin works largely because many people won't
reason things out for themselves. I have heard or read, Rice, Bush
and Negroponte all say that a new resoltion is not required. Well
it clearly is true that its not required if the US is willing to breach the
Charter.
I've also heard it said that "the final opportunity" has past. Well thats
statement can be made as an opinion or as a judgement. When anyone
other than the Security Council says it, (including me), its an opinion
only the Security Council can say it as a judgement.
My argument here is based on a line of reasoning from 1441 that is
available for anyone to check in the original post. My argument is that
the US signed over authority to interpret the meaning of key terms
such as "one final opportunity", "further material breach" and "serious
consequences" to the Security Council when they signed off on 1441.
- Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 27 2003 - 01:09:29 MST