Re: (> Iraq ) Law Scholars appeal to UN Secretary General

From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 11:46:41 MST

  • Next message: Greg Jordan: "Re:MEME: Leaderless Resistance"

    On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Brett Paatsch wrote:

    > Subject: (> Iraq ) Law Scholars appeal to UN Secretary General
    >
    > Hi Extropes,
    >
    > I've been keeping an eye open for a reasonably good description
    > of the legal ramifications of any "unilateral" decision to take military
    > action against Iraq. And the following (below) couched in terms of
    > a PR and open letter to Kofi Annan seems to fit the bill.

    I'm surprised this letter did not mention the US/UK talk of a "moral
    majority" on the Security Council justifying, at least partly, a decision
    that would (have) be(en) vetoed by the Security Council. This is
    a major new precedent that sidesteps the intentions of the UN Charter.

    The US Bush administration talk of the UN (and even NATO) being
    "irrelevant" is, I think, also a major new precedent for a superpower
    member of the Security Council, especially in its context of justifying a
    war of aggression.

    All of this seems a dark portent of things to come.

    If a "Uniting for Peace" resolution were adopted by the General Assembly
    threatening military retaliation or economic sanctions against the United
    States, would the world's largest military powers break into a new set of
    alliances in order to enforce it?

    Both previous World Wars were immediately preceded by the formation of
    competing worldwide military alliances. And what maneuvers would then be
    made by the key global capitalist players to prevent or facilitate war or
    form new transnational monopolies?

    Just questions I have been asking myself, without an answer . . .

    gej
    resourcesoftheworld.org
    jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 11:53:45 MST