[casi] Ken Hanly: UN inspectors and Iraq War

["John-Peter Hopperger" <j-ph@DELETETHISmindspring.com>]

Is or Isn't the UN Irrelevant now?

Ken Hanly asks whether it is legitimate for the UN to take directions from a
member state. He puts this in the context of the US having demanded the
withdrawal of weapons inspectors by a deadline.

The practice is called asking politely over the barrel of a gun. This is
nothing more than the typical way the US has previously behaved visavis the
United Nations.  The UN was a revival of the defunct League of Nations. The
initiative came from the Allied Victors of WW II.

The USA, the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union and the People's
Republic of China hold crippling veto power as permanent members of the UN
Security Council. The US, feeling that Britain and France owed it their
lives, apparently had always operated on the assumption that this obligated
them to block-vote on the side of the US.  The block ensured majority
control over security council policy.

It seems that the US regards the United Nations as its private toy, useful
to do tricks with, but not possessed of separate volition. The difference
now is that America no longer pretends accountability to the world body.
Colin Powell expressed it nicely during a congressional hearing when he said
that destiny hands America the role of "bully on the block."

We merely continue to see the US dictating to the international community
but now in a gloves-off manner. The immediate disadvantage is that the myth
of UN sacrosanct supremacy is unsustainable in the face of glaring US/UK
unilateralism.  Previously, other countries could be kept behaving by
invocation the governing, judiciary body of the UN to whom all are to
submit.

Now this myth has been exposed, and countries big or little, biting or
barking, will feel vindicated in thumbing noses at the UN. The US has lost a
valuable tool of coercion through an action it would surely come to regret
if, indeed, it were interested in a world of cooperative, independent
diversity. Since the Project for a New American Century follows the vision
of a militaristic US hegemony instead, the discussion of UN relevance may be
mute.

It would only come into focus again if the US finds that its plans are not
working out. In the meantime the UN will function as a service agency, an
oversight administrative body. Ken goes on to ask, "but isnt it prohibited
that the UN take direction from a member country?Shouldnt there have been a
UN resolution authorising withdrawal?"

Absolutely, but because of France's insistence that UNSC 1441 be upheld, the
US was shocked to find itself in a 2:3 minority among permanent members.
Unable to cajole the non-permanent members into voting for a resolution
authorizing the planned attack on Iraq, the US decided to pull out of the
democratic UN process altogether.

Had France, Russia or China attempted to table a resolution pertaining to
the authority for withdrawing weapons inspectors from Iraq, the US/UK would
have vetoed it. France knew better than to waste time with a draft
guaranteed to go nowhere.  The US would surely also have twisted it to show
France as engaging in childish obstinacy.

International law may well say that interfering with an ongoing
UN-authorized action is illegal.  But this probably begs relevance at this
point. It would be like telling an accused mass murderer, "by the way you
are also being charged with grand larceny." The US/UK  already engage in
genocide. Do they care whether they are additionally obstructing UN action
or transgressing the charter?

Ken says, "as I recall Blix claimed that his foremost concern was the safety
of his staff. But why should this be the case especially since the safety
was threatened by an impending illegal act by a member state?"

The problem I can see with this is that the US/UK dispute the claim that the
invasion of Iraq is illegal. By ignoring the controversy and taking recourse
to selective interpretation and creative combining of security council
resolutions, the aggressors salvage a veneer of legitimacy, just as lying
about the "threat of Saddam Hussein" allows them a veneer of morally
justified self defense.

The US/UK derail the discussion of legality and moral imperative by charging
the security council with negligence in enforcing its own resolutions. This
is, of course, manifest nonsense, but what can be done about it? Nothing.
Should France, Russia or China attempt to draft a resolution showing the
US/UK to be in violation of the UN charter, it will be vetoed.

Ken's idea that refusal by the UN to withdraw the inspectors would have
caused a political disaster for the US/UK is plausible enough.  It may be,
however, that the threat of a political disaster is a calculated risk.  The
importance of having the inspectors out of Iraq and away from sites where
the liberating force may intend to find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction
could override concerns over any political fallout. Finding evidence could
retroactively legitimize the criminal invasion. The necessary planting of
the evidence could not be carried out under the watchful eyes of weapons
inspectors.

The debate right now is probably about how to best pull off the WsMD caper.
If the WsMD get found during the combat phase, it will beg credibility.
Russia has already publicly warned the US/UK against attempting that manner
of discovery. Such a stunt would only make sense if the fortunes of war were
to force the liberators' withdrawal from combat. In that case we might
expect them to stumble upon WsMD on their way out.

The best time for finding WsMD will be after a puppet regime is installed
and US/UK forces have begun to roam the country keeping the peace.  Even so,
there could still be a credibility problem. The world would be aware that
Iraq is being run by a puppet governernment that has no choice but to let
the US/UK find whatever and wherever they want. Enter the UN weapons
inspectors.

In this scenario the inspectors will be allowed back in sometime between the
planting and the finding of the WsMD.  It is still doubtful that the experts
would not find clues to the planting job. The evidence to be discovered will
probably not be seamless enough to stand scrutiny. Consider how Powell,
Blair, et. al.  have thus far bungled presentations of evidence for Iraq's
alleged WsMD.

Before allowing inspectors back into Iraq, the liberators will want to
become familiar with the lay of the land. They are also desperately trying
to get to the government archives in Baghdad. Unless Saddam had the wisdom
of moving Iraq's secret files to Russia for safekeeping, the US/UK will be
able to use these in organizing a credible WsMD-planting job.

In the absence of the secret files, the planters could easily set a trap for
themselves. Iraqi documents could be later used to show how the find is not
genuine. Absent Saddam's secret files, they cannot be doctored or
misconstrued. It would make the credible discovery of WsMD much more
difficult.

Perhaps this explains why the liberators are so heavy-handed near the border
in blowing up vehicles larger than a small sedan. They want to prevent the
transport of files out of Iraq. Ken concludes by posing the question
regarding Saddam's weapons of mass destruction:  "If none are found will the
coaliton of the willing abjectly apologise, withdraw, and leave the UN to
run Iraq?"

Ha, ha. Thank you. We do need a dose of humor right now. The only way the
US/UK are going to leave Iraq is in body bags or frantically waving white
flags toward the pursuing Iraqis. Why should they turn the place over to the
UN, now that they finally got in?  This has never been about WsMD, evils of
Saddam's dictatorship, lack of freedom of the Iraqi people, links to
terrorism, or any other of the mainstays of the war on terror marketing
campaign.

The prize is Iraq itself. First there is the oil. Then there is the forward
base for launching invasions into other Middle East countries. From there on
out it is all bonus.  If no WsMD are found, and the US/UK were somehow
misunderstood enough to surprise us with evidence that they are still humans
capable of course correction, then there would be no justification for the
UN to run Iraq either. Give Iraq back to the Iraqi people.  They alone have
a legitimate claim to it.

So long, JP
_________________
They read good books, and quote, but never learn
a language other than the scream of rocket-burn.
Our straighter talk is drowned but ironclad:
elections, money, empire, oil and Dad.

Andrew Motion


_______________________________________________
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 casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk