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 List, I have included an article (below) that was sent to me by a friend. My question is, what will happen as Blair considers a regime change illegal, when Bush wants it? How will the UK help the US with this war? Does anyone think Blair is appeasing the UK by saying it is illegal to fight for a regime change, but will support it anyway with the UK's military? How can the UK join the US in a "fight" against Iraq when it (UK) clearly does not meet eye-to-eye on the reasons to justify this war? ~ Anai Rhoads http://www.aol.co.uk/webcentres/world/2.html TONY Blair has been warned by his senior law officers that a war waged to bring about regime change in Iraq would be illegal. Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith and Solicitor-General Harriet Harman say if it pursues a war against Iraq Britain could be hauled before the International Court of Justice. The Financial Times says they have given clear advice that military action with the goal of toppling Saddam Hussein would breach the UN charter. The advice to Mr Blair is that international law permits military action in support of existing UN Security Council resolutions requiring Saddam to give up his weapons of mass destruction. And a new resolution which the US and UK have proposed would make military action to eliminate such weapons more acceptable in legal terms. Mr Blair has always been careful to stress that any military action must take place within the framework of international law, and has not followed Mr Bush in stating an explicit policy of "regime change" in Iraq. Meanwhile, George Bush has been criticised by Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell for his apparent determination to remove Saddam, whether or not he has secured international backing. "To be consistent with international law, military action must always be the last resort when all other diplomatic and political options have been exhausted," said Mr Campbell. "The language of the President is increasingly inconsistent with these principles. The more bellicose he sounds, the less likely it is that the United Nations will endorse the use of force. The President gives the impression of not being willing to take 'yes' for an answer." As senior Democrats in the United States have already observed, the present rhetoric of the Bush Administration seems designed to maximise support in the mid-term elections rather than seeking a sensible solution to the problem of Iraq." (c) Copyright Ananova Ltd 2002, all rights reserved. - - - - http://savethechildren.org/childrenemerg.shtml http://www.thePetitionSite.com/takeaction/411151486 -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup "Free price comparison tool gives you the best prices and cash back!" http://www.bestbuyfinder.com/download.htm _______________________________________________ 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 email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk