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]

Re: Article in Janes Weekly re: no-fly zones

By "illegal" I mean that the "no-fly" zones were not authorised by the UN.
If Schwarzkopf agreed terms with Iraq on the no-fly zones then he did so as a US agent, not as a UN 
agent, since the zones are not recognised by the UN. When the UN empowered the US, UK and others to 
remove Iraq from Kuwait it did not authorise the decimation of its troops which took place within 
Iraq, or bombing raids on Iraq.  I don't think therefore that any agreement made by Iraq under 
threat of such illegal military action
can itself me regarded as legal. At the very least, it was not an agreement made with the UN.

The UK/US claim that they are protecting Kurdish people is hardly credible when they allow Turkish 
incursions into Northern Iraq, and have themselves killed and maimed many innocent people in the 
process of "patrolling" the zones.

However, my point was to try to clarify the legal status of the no-fly zones; Iraq may well have 
reneged on certain agreed terms with the UN, but the no-fly zones were imposed by the US/UK, not 
least  to provide them with an excuse for sporadic and unwarranted bombing raids on Iraq. This was 
an astute move by the US and its puppy since it can be used to neatly divert media attention from 
various embarrassments in the White
House, as well as increasing arms sales and reminding the rest of the world just who's in charge.

We're not likely to forget that Iraq is run by a brutal regime; what I think we are in danger of 
forgetting, and in the case of the no-fly zones have already done, is that in the presence of the 
UN we don't need American and Britain to assume the role of world cop.

> How can this be termed "illegal" after Iraq agreed to the terms ?
> Excuse me for asking you to clarify this, but I remember Szwarzkopf being asked by the Iraqi 
>regime to allow flights and it ended up with Iraq agreeing to terms put to them that prevented 
>their flights by plane and helicopters. This also took into consideration that there would be less 
>opportunties for Iraq to go after the Kurdish peoples. I recall
> the entire matter agreed upon included that Iraq would return all third-national and Kuwaiti 
>detainees to The State of Kuwait, plus return all the stolen personal items, as well as artifacts 
>loaded en masse and taken to Iraq during the illegal occupation ...........................
> A. Briton

This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email
Full archive and list instructions are available from the CASI website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]