The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Interpreting Annan Deal (fwd)

From: "Boyle, Francis" <FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Interpreting Annan Deal
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:59:25 -0600

Dear Friends:
        Today's New York Times reports on the front page:"During intense
discussions, Mr. Clinton and his national security advisers moved away
from a plan to hit Mr.Hussein with the biggest military strike of the
Clinton Presidency. They concluded that in the absence of solid
international and domestic support, it was best to mount yet another
diplomatic effort." 

        The rest of the article makes it quite clear that in negotiating
this deal with Iraq, Annan was following instructions from Clinton,
Albright and Richardson. Hence, the only thing that made them back down
from an attack was massive public opposition in the United States and
abroad. Consequently, they still intend to attack Iraq as soon as a
suitable pretext can be manufactured. Hence, the US military build-up in
the Gulf continues apace. The Annan deal was only a temporary holding

        The conclusion is quite clear: We must continue to mount effective
worldwide opposition to any type of military attack against Iraq by the
United States and Britain with the cooperation of other states! 
        Francis A. Boyle
        Professor of International Law

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, Ill. 61820
Phone: 217-333-7954
Fax: 217-244-1478


This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To be removed/added, email, NOT the
whole list. Archived at

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]