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]
John, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have some comments. >True, as stated in "678 and 687 -- both still in >effect -- the United States and our allies are >authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons >of mass destruction. This is not a question of >authority, it is a question of will." >I have to apologize here for our president. He has >been known to lack precision in the comprehension >and use of words. What he is missing are the >operative words "in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass >destruction." Neither of the two resolutions says >that the "United States and its allies are >authorized to use force" in LOOKING FOR weapons of >mass destruction in Iraq. They only authorize the >use of force in RIDDING Iraq OF weapons of mass >destruction. I am afraid this is not true. Resolution 678 had nothing to do with any WMDs or of ridding Iraq of them. It did not even explicitly authorize the use of force against Iraq to force it out of Kuwait. All possible means was "interpreted" by the US and its allies to mean the use of force, without following the formal procedure for that action in accordance with the Charter. That interpretation remains questionable.. Even if we accept this twisted "interpretation" of Resolution 678, then the authorization for the use of force ended with Resolution 687 because the objective of getting Iraq out of Kuwait was achieved. New conditions were imposed on Iraq for lifting sanctions forcing it to rid itself (and the whole Middle East) of WMDs. This had nothing to do with Kuwait or with Resolution 678. Thus, it seems to me incorrect to state that Resolution 687 is still in effect (meaning the use of force). Let us not forget that the daily bombings and the no-fly zones are violations of the Charter and the US and UK are "in material breach".. Their actions even violate Resolution 688 on which they and their puppets and apologists base the establishment of the no-fly zones. That resolution was NOT based on Chapter VII of the Charter and thus the automatic use of force is not included in it.. But the US and UK have acted as they wished, with a weak and immoral world watching. When it suits them, they refer to the Charter of the UN. When it doesn't suit them, they go their way. Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. -Paulo Freire, educator (1921-1997) HZ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.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