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]

UN intentional ambiguity

here's another editorial in the Iraqi Daily, written by Nasra Al-Sadoon about the UN's intentional ambiguity.
Dirk Adriaensens


UN intentional ambiguity

Nasra Al-Sadoon

Among the main United Nations Security Council tools to veil the real intentions of its permanent members agenda is using an ambiguous language so as to create several interpretations, therefore enforce the one that serves the colonial aims intended in reaching the said resolution. Many such ambiguous resolutions took years of futile discussions that kept the resolution from being implemented.

The most famous of these was the Caradon wording of the 242 resolution of 1967 on the Palestinian issue, the ambiguity was very simple, was it the Zionist entity should evacuate the occupied LANDS or THE OCCUPIED LANDS. Therefore many decades had elapsed and the Zionist entity is still occupying the Palestinian lands in violation of the UN Charter and all UN Security Council and General Assembly.

Other resolutions concerning Iraq as no less ambiguous, especially paragraph 14 of 689/1991 resolution on creating a ZONE in the Middle East free of arm of mass destruction. Therefore the Security Council did nothing to enforce this paragraph on other nations in the region while keeping the genocidal sanctions on Iraq with the pretext that the UNSCOM had not attested that Iraq is free from WMDs.

Another example is clear on the intentional ambiguity of the Security Council resolutions is the 1382/2001 which makes the items on the Goods Review List "subject to any refinements to them agreed by the Council in light of further consultations" before the list comes into effect in six months.

Two things should be brought to attention about interpreting SCR 1382.

First, the French version of paragraph two reads "decides to adopt the List and the procedures, subject to eventual refinements that could be made to them with the Council's consent on the basis of future consultations". This text seems to favor the first interpretation, namely that the list and procedures have been adopted, but "could" be refined by future resolutions.

The Spanish version also uses the "decides to adopt" rather than the English's "decides that it will adopt".

Second, the UN has actually issued two contradictory press releases, one
favoring each interpretation. The first, at, reads: The Council also took note of a proposed Goods Review List, which is under consideration with a view to speeding up the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Iraq. The Council decided it will "adopt the List and the procedures, subject to any refinements to them agreed by the Council in light of further consultations, for implementation beginning on 30 May 2002."

The second, at, reads: The Council also approved a proposed Goods Review List, attached as an Annex 1, open for implementation on 30 May 2002. Items on the list ... are
subject to procedures attached in Annex 2.”

Another intentional ambiguity of UNSC resolution that aims at enforcing the stupid sanctions that failed to gain the admittance six months ago. Maybe the Security Council is trying to forget that any resolution cannot be implemented without Iraq’s cooperation, which is the vital element that decides the final outcome of any UN resolution.

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]