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 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 general. 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 UNSC. 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... HZ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.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 email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk