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] The Security Council and its resolutions..

Dear List,

It seems that the Bush administration is insisting on getting a new SC
resolution against Iraq, which it can use to attack Iraq for any reason, thus
showing its "great respect" for the "credibility of the UN".

So far, the UK has expressed open support. France, in its usual habit, is
shifting towards supporting a US resolution. China is quiet about that, while
insisting on Iraq's full compliance with SC resolutions.

The only obstacle so far seems to be Russia. So far, Russia has opposed the
idea of having a new resolution at the SC, insisting that the existing ones have
the necessary mechanism for making sure that Iraq will comply. But with all what
the US may offer Russia (never forget the price paid in 1990), no one can be
In the best of cases, Russia will abstain from voting, and the SC resolution
will be adopted.

This again raises the issue of lthe egality of SC resolutions.

In previous discussions, it has been suggested that the abstention of a
permanent member does not render a resolution illegal, since the Charter does not
require the concurring vote of ALL permanent members.

Just to make my point clear about this issue, the internet site of the United
Nations states the following:

"Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by
an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions onsubstantive
matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent
members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the
"veto" power."

I believe that that is an issue that should be followed up by anti-sanctions
movement regarding the legality of the original attacks against Iraq, the
formation of UNMOVIC and any coming resolution adopted in the same way.


Only at Maktoob. Send your Arabic email without a need for an Arabic Operating System.

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]