From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 19:06:43 MST
John Clarke writes:
> "Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au>
>
> > 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.
>
> I would have thought that was obvious; recent events have made
> it abundantly clear that while the international community is quite
> adept at generating huge amounts of high minded verbiage it is totally
> incapable of enforcing any of it. So to answer your question, the
> ramifications of breaking international law (assuming those two words
> even have a meaning after today) are precisely zero.
In the international community reputations matter. The collateral damage
to the US and to the interests of its citizens has started already.
The United States signed the United Nations Charter and (under the
Bush administration) resolution 1441. These are solemn agreements
made on very serious matters and any breaches of them and the
consequences of any breaches of them by the US (under the Bush
administration) will remain on the public record longer than Saddam
Hussein or President Bush remain at the head of their respective
Nation states.
John, I am not anti-american (whatever that means) and I will not
mourn the passing of Saddam's regime but I think it will now be
achieved by inferior means and with more collateral damage because,
frankly, when the hard decisions requiring executive judgements
needed to be made, President Bush was the U.S. President.
President Bush had alternatives. He more than anyone else was AND
STILL IS controlling the clock and President Chirac, as I
understand it, had moved as far as to accept a deadline of as short
as 1 month.
With a united UN making the ultimatum the prospects of removing
Saddam alive (and far more importantly keeping the UN intact and
preventing loss of life and property) would have been much greater.
This is not the best source for Chirac's statement by any means
but its a source I just happen to have handy as it is in today's
copy (Tuesday March 18) of The Australian.
Title: Frantic last-ditch UN talks
"French President Jacques Chirac said yesterday he was willing to
accept a one-month to two month deadline provided the move was
endorsed by the chief UN weapons inspectors"
Hell John, on that basis *I* could write a UN Resolution that would
break the deadlock with France. Simply re-craft the draft one proffered
by Spain, the US and the UK with a one-month deadline by stating the
' "final opportunity" in 1441 shall be deemed to have been passed by
the Security Council in one-month from this date and "serious measures"
extending up to and including the removal of Iraq's ruling regime by
force shall, at that time, shall be automatically authorised.' "
President Bush can (i.e.. the power exists in the US Presidency to) draw
France and Chirac out into an untenable position with the greatest of
ease if President Bush so chooses. Chirac probably wants to be drawn
out.
But President Bush has to be *capable* and *willing* to do it. Just as
he is responsible for any excessive collateral damage including to the
US if he does not do it.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 19:01:00 MST