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]

[casi] Why inspections?



Dear All,

Having followed the discussions about the coming new slaughter of Iraq, I
could not but notice one common factor even among those who care for the Iraqis
and the injustice that has been done to them: all call for dismantling Iraq's
weapons programs.

I know some have their own views of the Iraqi president and the Ba'th Party,
but that is hardly the criteria upon which views regarding the fate and
sovereignty of a country are based.
If the issue is that Saddam Hussein killed his own people, then that applies
first of all to the history of the US against its own citizens, as well as almost
every country in the world.
So why should we all accept that it is alright to disarm Iraq, and Iraq alone?

Why should some states be "more equal than others"? And what gives those same
states that develop and own WMDs the right to decide who can have such weapons and
who can not?

No one has given us any explanation as to why inspections must be carried out
in Iraq…

I understand that all of us are against sanctions, but our wish to help the
people of Iraq should not be in the form of accepting anything less than justice
for Iraq and equality with other states. If one state in the world (be it a super
power like the US or a has-been like Britain) can own such weapons, there is no
legal nor moral grounds to prevent others from having the same right, regardless
of what some may think of SH or his regime.

Those who refer to the UN SC resolutions forget major issues. First of all,
the SC is not a court of law, nor can it issue resolutions that violate the
Charter of the UN or International Law. There is no ground for preventing any
member state of the UN from having WMDs, similar to those owned by others. The
claim that Iraq's acquisition of such weapons is a threat to international peace
which should be stopped is absurd, and could apply more to states that really have
such weapons in the area, especially Israel.

Second, the SC resolutions against Iraq have almost all been adopted in
violation of the Charter of the UN itself. The lack of the "concurring vote" of
any permanent member of the SC (as demanded by the Charter) makes adopting such
resolution illegal. The first such resolution was 678 of November 29, 1990. China
abstained, which means that the draft resolution failed to receive the necessary
"concurring vote of all permanent members". How it was adopted exposes the
hypocrisy and ignorance within the UN machine, and shatters the credibility of the
UN. You can not punish someone for violating international law by violating
international law yourself.
And therefore, as the legal principle goes, every resolution that was based on
resolution 678 is illegal and not binding, including especially resolution 687 of
April 1991, which is the base for inspections.

Third, sanctions were imposed on Iraq for invading Kuwait in violation of
international law and the Charter of the UN. The only condition set for the
sanctions was Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. When that was achieved by March 1,
1991 sanctions had no legal ground for them, and should have been lifted. The
sanctions regime imposed again in April 1991 (though the resolution is illegal),
with new conditions, had nothing to do with the previous regime, nor with its
reasons, nor with the UN Charter or international law. It is NOT illegal under the
UN Charter to own WMDs. Nor has the SC determined that Iraq was a threat to
International Security when adopting resolution 687 to justify adopting a
resolution under Chapter 7 of the Charter, allowing its implementation by force.

I think that it is important for us to stress these legal facts in addition to
the inhumanity of sanctions and the catastrophe it has created. If we are to call
for inspections in Iraq, then we should call for inspection in every state which
is known to be or suspected of developing WMDs, and call for FULL IMPLEMENTATION
OF ALL SC RESOLUTIONS BY ALL STATES. Otherwise, we would be accepting that
inequality is right.

Finally, I found the following sentence, from a letter to the editor of Time
Magazine's latest issue, quite interesting:

"The Administration's mentality seems to be that democracy and legitimate
justice are for Americans. Others get the crumbs from the table".

Hassan

_________________________________________________________
Better safe than sorry, right? You will always be safe with the Maktoob Anti-Virus feature.
http://www.maktoob.com



_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]