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]
Dear Peter and List, I am sorry to have to again repeat something I have tried to explain many times. It seems to be a common mistake that appears in Pilger's article too. It is not correct to say that "the 1991 war against Iraq was the only military intervention the US have conducted with the permission of the Security Council since the Korean War..". The Security Council DID NOT give its permission to the US to attack Iraq.... First of all, there was no explicit authorization to use force. Second, and most important, China abstained from voting, and thus the requirement for the "concurring votes of the permanent members" was not satisfied. I know that there have been arguments against this view, citing a ruling by the ICJ. But the following facts remain, regardless of what the ICJ and its judges may say: 1. Article 27 of the Charter clearly states that on substantive matter, there must be the "concurring votes of the permanent members". The Charter does not state "the permanent members present" as some have suggested, nor that "provided no permanent members vote against it", as other have suggested. 2. In a previous post, I quoted the UN page, which explains the voting as follows: "Decisions on substantive 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 think this should be quite self-explanatory, and the UN would hardly put on its page wrong information regarding the mechanism of decision-making.. 3. I have also posted before a quote of a Statement by Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. issued on March 5, 1945 which included the following: "Where the Council is engaged in performing its political functions of action for maintenance of peace and security, a difference is made between the permanent members of the Council and other nations for the practical reason that the permanent members of the Council must, as a matter of necessity, bear the principal responsibility for action. Unanimous agreement among the permanent members of the Council is therefore requisite. In such matters, therefore, the concurrence of all the permanent members would be required." I hope this explains more of the legal issue. It is wrong, in my opinion, to accept what is being done as legal, simply because it is done. We have a duty to oppose any violations of the UN Charter by any state, especially now when Iraq's biggest "sin" is the allegation that it is not respecting UN resolutions and Charter. It seems that the US will refuse to allow the inspectors to go to Iraq under the current resolutions, and will veto any resolution in the SC unless it gets a new resolution. The SC will accept, rather than let the matter stand without a resolution knowing that the US will attack anyway. I believe that here too, Russia and China will abstain, and the US will go ahead and claim the resolution legal. We should be prepared for that... Regards HZ _________________________________________________________ Need help building a winning CV? An impressive cover letter? It's all right here for FREE! Go to Maktoob Jobs. 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 firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk