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] Resolution 1441

This has cost the US little.  In one sense they are already at war.  In another sense they will not 
be ready for war until February (I have had that from a number of sources including a Labour MP 
last night).  So, what they have is a resolution which can justify an attack and a timescale that 
is unlikely to delay anything beyond that which they initially have been working on.

For the major tribes to abandon Saddam and the opposition to arise against him requires a clear 
situation in that he is going to lose.  That is really a matter of will. On a practical basis he 
cannot win.  For the tribes such as Al Juburi and Al Hamdani to abandon him means they have to see 
where their future lies.  I can see why the americans as planning to build a substantial force 
which is clearly perceived as overwhelming in as much as he loses support within the Sooni Arabs.

So what the Americans now have is a situation in which they can justify action for the rest of the 
world outside the Middle East.  The interesting point about the Syrian vote is that there are quite 
a few Jubiri in Syria as well as Iraq.

As far as the Security Council goes.  Consulting the SC only requires a discussion.  A resolution 
against military action would be vetoed by the US so it will not be proposed.  The US accepted the 
resolution on the basis that it did not require a further resolution, merely consultation, before 
any military action.

The only thing that confuses me is why people see as consultation as requiring a resolution.  From 
a purely legal perspective it cannot be argued.  Indeed frequently when people are consulted the 
consulters do the opposite of what the consultees request.    The only circumstance in which there 
would be an additional resolution is that in which the US knew it would pass.

Here is the text (key extracts from

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant 
resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraqs failure to cooperate with 
United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 
13 of resolution 687 (1991);

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 
above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant 
Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious 
consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

That as I read it does not even require consultation of the security council.
a)  If Iraq does not behave it faces "serious consequences"
b) It is in "material breach".

Regardless of what people (including myself) would like to be the situation SCRes1441 does not 
constrain the US.  (even to Consulting the UN Sec Council).
It requires that the Security Council meet with that matter on the agenda.

Para 4 relates to any false statements or omissions being a material breach and requiring reporting 
cf 11.  11 refers to interfering with the inspection and/or failing to disarm.

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]