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]
Hello Hassan, Thank you for your kind response and the useful references. I share your view that the Bush adaptation of UNSCR 678 and 687 is at best willful, resting as it does, on the false premise of an implied mandate for force where there is none. I can only imagine how difficult it would be for a great devotee of the death penalty like Mr. Bush to imagine that a punitive measure might perhaps have a redemptive rather than an obliterating function. To a certain extent, the president's usurpation of intent which you and I equally deplore gets facilitated by the often deliberately vague text wording aimed at obscuring what is actually expected of Iraq. I understand that this is in line with the inhumane US policy of making damn sure that Iraq remains suspended in a state of perpetual penitence, regardless of any remedial measures it takes. This, more than anything, testifies to the stranglehold the US has had on Security Council proceedings, and to the hindrance it keeps making itself to be to the implementation and verification processes, as well as to the efforts of the Sanctions Committee. Thus far the US managed to successfully neutralize, through sabotage, indefinite blocking of end schedules, and ever intimidating hisses of its veto power, any hope on the Iraqi's side to one day extricate themselves from the longest, most unjust war reparations ordeal in modern times. The very use of the word compliance in such a no-win context is more than just a cruel hoax. Even modest objectivity will lead one to the conclusion that the labyrinthine rehabilitation plan concocted by the US has, and always did have, as its true end the ultimate destabilization of the political order in Iraq. As I said in the previous post to which you have kindly responded, the United States never envisioned a practical objective short of regime change, all rhetoric notwithstanding. This said, I return to my earlier reflections. With what I wrote I did not aspire to an assessment of any resolutions contents or purport. My thoughts were just reacting to the speech itself. I think you would agree that the presidential spin is hardly worth taking through a comparative analysis. The caliber of the speech could not be stepped up enough to make that work. Even his proxy references to UNSCR 678 and 687 were contrived, as you have shown. I only jotted down thoughts that came to me in the course of visiting the weird mindset that had produced the president's psycho babble. The only possible value to this exercise of mine might lie in showing that, even taking his assertions at face value, factual distortions and all, they still do not hold water. The most generous concessions would prove insufficient for endowing the piece with a semblance of logic. Thus, finding its sadly amorphous state beyond redemption, I projected just enough structure for me to be able to address something like an argument, rather than a few loosely strung together propaganda slogans. What you read in my post was the result of this game. For me the really sad thing is that we are dealing with a supposed world leader, whose mind seems incapable of transcending the three or four uninspiring slogans that seek to masquerade as concepts, for as long as I can remember. It is embarrassing to watch him mechanicallly grind out mantras with complete abandon. Please accept my apologies for giving the impression that I found anything factual in what Mr. Bush said. I assure you that this would have been an epiphany. I should have been more clear instead of assuming that the perimeters of my reflections would be understood as being defined by the quotation marks around Mr. Bush's statements. For me it was not an overly satisfying experience. Although I think I did manage to breathe enough life into his "speech" to be able to interact with it, I realized all the more how doubtful it is that Mr. Bush would actually be able to appreciate having his fallacies attended to. I honestly think that the leader of the free world is bereft of any capacity for course direction. Thank you, Hassan, it was fun chatting with you. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hassan Zeini" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:06 AM Subject: Re: [casi] Thoughts About Huge Holes in "48 Hours or Else" speech > 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 > > > __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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