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]

Re: [casi] Blix orders Destruction of Iraq missiles

Dear Roger and List,

If one is to tackle the "legality" of resolution 687
and Iraq's "obligations", one should also take account
of a very important aspect relating to "legality" in
Iraq was "FORCED" to accept resolution 687 under
threat of further destruction by the US, with hints of
using Nuclear Weapons if Iraq did not agree to
resolution 687. Thus the "legality" of that resolution
and others based on it become questionable, to say the
least. I think international law agrees that
agreements made under coercion are illegal..
There was some discussion on the legality vis a vis
resolution 687 on this list last year, whereby the
writer argued whether the ceasefire was between Iraq
and the UN or Iraq and the US. These are open
questions that beg to be addressed and answered, and
until then I don't believe that SCR 687 was a legal
one since it violated Iraq's right to self-defense as
embedded in international law.
That was my main point.

Another point is that the SC is NOT an entity
qualified to make legal resolutions and decisions. It
has violated the articles of the Charter many times
with regards to Iraq, and has failed to address issues
like the illegal no-fly zones or the disarmament of
the whole area.
I think the UN died in November 1947 when it accepted
the partition of Palestine against the will of its
original inhabitants and in violation of their human
rights, and has failed to enforce numerous resolutions
against Israel. I find it ridiculus that Bush and
Blair talk about Iraq undermining the authority of the
All talk of US democracy and defense of the rights of
nations is an insult to the intelligence of people in
the world.

> Under the law, Iraq has specific obligations, and
> since the USA is the entity
> which enforces these "laws" and designs their
> interpretation, then those are
> the interpretations which are salient.  (reality) I
> believe that Iraq has obligations that relate to
> missile systems which they have violated.

Under which law? The law of the jungle which is
designed and enforced by the US? Is that the basis for
evaluating and "killing" people in the world?

> Is it fair/legal?  Yes, it is fair in legal terms.

What legal terms are we talking about here?

> I believe that the USA, through it's economic and
> military power, has created a narrative, and forces
> the rest of the world to inhabit this narrative.

Exactly my point, only I do not confuse "legality"
with might being right...


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

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]