From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Mon Feb 17 2003 - 23:00:20 MST
Emlyn wrote:
> Why isn't the US going to war with Iceland, immediately?
> I don't think that the doves [hawks?] on this list have
> provided any solid reasons for not going to war with Iceland.
> And who is any of us to say what the terrible implications of
> not going to war with Iceland might be? Iceland says it doesn't
> have any WMD, but is there proof?
This looks a bit like a sentiment I used to share. My view had
been - since when did it become the responsibility of the
accused to prove their innocence?R What great dangers lurked
for the world (and for US citizens themselves) if the Bush
administration (unelected but for Bush himself) and commanding
both the worlds most powerful military force and an extraordinary
capacity to put its own "spin" out through the media was to be
permitted to appoint itself judge, jury and executioner and did
not even seem to acknowledge that people in the free world
expected them to make their case?R Had the world forgotten
Nixon (that Presidential administrations could go off the rails?R)
Had Americans forgotten?R
Surely the greater threat, it seemed to me was the Bush
administration's own approach. But something didn't make sense.
Why was it that Powell (who was more widely respected than
Bush) and even Hans Blix were also emphasising that it was up
to Iraq to prove it was cooperating and not up to the
investigators to find evidence of non-cooperation?R. This
looked to me to stand the normal burden of proof on its head.
Then I read Resolution 1441 which *all* members of the
Security Council (a body appointed to represent all Member
Nations of the UN) had agreed too. All includes France,
Pakistan and Syria.
(The UN link to 1441 is temperamental the US State Dept
holds a copy that is more likely to be reference at
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm. Its below
a page of State Dept. commentary. )
Resolution 1441 amounts to giving Saddam Hussein one last
chance after 12 years of non-compliance with UN Resolutions
and with the terms of the cease fire from the last Gulf War.
It needs to be understood in this particular context or it will
be misunderstood. I'm know because I misunderstood it.
I think the existence of Resolution 1441 with all 15 Security
Council members supporting it has two important ramifications.
First, it is not just the United States that demanded that Iraq
disarm and to show that it had disarmed or that it would find
itself to be in "material breach" and face "serious consequences"
it was the entire Security Council, unanimously, back in November.
Second, in my opinion, because the US and the
UK two permanent Members of the Security Council also
signed 1441, they, by that action, not only agreed "to afford Iraq
by this resolution a final opportunity" but they also implicitly agreed
that the decision as to what constitutes a "material breach" and as
to what constitutes a "serious consequence" would be made by
the Security Council. Not just by the US or the US and the UK
together.
This in my opinion is an interesting detail because had the US not
taken the matter to the Security Council and signed off on 1441
then the US might have had grounds under Article 51 of the
UN Charter to take action against Iraq unilaterally (or with allies
in its own defence - using the circumstances of September 11
and the possibility of a nexus between terrorists and Iraq with
WMD as grounds for an immediate response in the interests
of defending it citizens.)
( http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
See Article 51 - Chap 7. ACTION WITH RESPECT TO
THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE,
AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION )
However, having placed this matter in the hands of the Security
Council, and signed Resolution 1441 I do not see how the
United States (with the UK or any other nation that is a Member
of the UN and a signatory to the Charter) can now act on
exactly the matter that the Security Council has before it without
Security Council assent without themselves breaching their
agreement with the UN as encapsulated in the Charter and 1441.
In my opinion (which could be wrong) the US now *needs*
a new resolution from the Security Council to at least release
it from it obligations under the Charter and 1441 or it will be
acting in breach of its these and will itself render the UN null
and void. This would not be a minor detail. This would be a
permanent Member of the Security Council (and quite possibly
two if the UK acted with it) breaching their agreements to the
UN. This breach would seem to render the UN Charter and
the Security Council farcical. All international law (such as it is)
that derives from the UN would be undermined. Indeed international
laws which rely on the signatories of agreements to honour their
word would also be substantially undermined.
Some may argue it is already. But so far it is not farcical because
Permanent Security Council members (which the UN Charter
has no provision to expel or dismiss) are so far not acting in violation
of their agreements with the UN (and other Member Nations).
So it seems to me the stakes are very high. The UN itself is in
some real danger of being invalidated. The only justification that
the US and the UK could give for not honoring their agreement
to the UN would be that the UN had failed in its purpose and
had become irrelevant (this term sound familiar?R).
The purpose of the UN as contained in Article 1 of the Charter
is "to maintain international peace and *security*, and ...to take
*effective* collective measure for the prevention and removal
of threats to the peace").
( http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
See Article 1 - Chap 1. PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES )
Civilization is a bootstrapping process. Bodies like the League of
Nations and the United Nations can indeed fail if they are not
satisfying the practical purposes for which they were established.
They can of course also fail for a lack of good faith on the part of
their members.
I think it is greatly to be hoped that the 50 plus year endeavour
that has been the United Nations does not fail and I think its worth
recognizing that there are two ways in which it might fail in
the present circumstances. A lack of will to take *effective*
practical measures to maintain international security may be
grounds for failure (and each Member nation including and perhaps
especially the US must make this determination on the willingness
of other Security Council members for themselves to be willing to
make hard decisions and to take effective means as each nation
has the responsible ultimately for the protection of its own citizens
as best it can). Poor faith on the part of some countries, again
especially the US through the Bush administration acting too
precipitously might also wreck the UN.
Personally I remain optimistic that the UN will not fail for
either of these causes. I suspect a new resolution will be struck
that will at least allow the US and the UK with a "coalition of
the willing" to take action without breaching their individual
Member obligations under the Charter and 1441. I hope my
optimism does not prove to be misplaced. I suspect it won't
but I'd like to be surer.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 17 2003 - 22:38:22 MST