The UN Resolutions & Saddam
To: Website Readers
From: Gordon Prather, Guest Column
Re: Saddam vs. bin Laden
Ever since he escaped their clutches in the Gulf War, the warhawks have been hell-bent on hanging Saddam Hussein from a sour apple tree.
Unfortunately, the only Gulf War Security Council resolution authorizing member states to 'use all necessary means' -- UNSCR 678 (1990)-- applied only to ejecting Iraqi armed forces from Kuwait, and forcing Saddam to return to Kuwait all the hostages and booty he had taken.
True, Saddam had massively violated several UN arms limitation agreements, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And, UNSCR 687 (1991) required Iraq to come again into compliance. However, it merely imposed economic sanctions as an enforcement mechanism.
In 1998 the warhawks tried to replace UNSCR 687 with a disarmament resolution that would authorize 'all necessary means' for enforcement. The UNSC refused to pass such a resolution. In fact, Russia and France even wanted to lift the sanctions imposed by UNSCR 687.
The result was a compromise -- UNSCR 1284 (1999) -- which acknowledged substantial compliance with UNSCR 687, and partially lifted the sanctions. To monitor Iraq's progress towards complete compliance, UNSCR 1284 set up a new monitoring and inspection regime.
Saddam, who had accepted all previous UNSC resolutions, refused to fully accept UNSCR 1284. In particular, he accepted the 'oil for food' program it established, but refused to admit the new monitoring and inspection regime.
That's understandable. The worst that could happen to Saddam under UNSCR 1284 was that the tougher sanctions of UNSCR 687 might be re-imposed. Instead, the sanctions were further eased by UNSCR 1382 (2001).
The warhawks were fit to be tied. Saddam was getting away.
Then Osama bin Laden inflicted Sept 11th on us and we declared War Against Terrorism.
"Eureka!" cried the warhawks. They could forget about the UNSC resolutions. All they had to do was convince soccer-moms that killing Saddam was more important than killing Osama. After all, Saddam was suspected of having reconstituted his nuke development program whereas Osama had never had a program to reconstitute.
But, despite a year-long media blitz, public opinion polls showed that most Americans continue to be much more worried about Osama than about Saddam.
So the warhawks decided to fuzz up things. To mix up the War Against Terrorism with UN arms control conventions.
First, they got Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the president "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to -- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Now, they needed a new auto-enforcing disarmament resolution to replace UNSCR 1284 (1999). They cleverly inserted this language in the US draft of UNSCR 1441 (2002).
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area..."
The idea was to hijack the language of UNSCR 678 to justify the use of "all necessary means" to enforce UNSCR 1441 (2002)-- which would be, of course, "subsequent" to UNSCR 660 (1990).
The Russians and French got it clearly on record that the authorization of UNSCR 678 was never meant to -- and did not -- apply to any resolution 'subsequent' to UNSCR 678, and most specifically did not apply to UNSCR 1441.
So, any attempt to exercise his Congressional authorization to "enforce" UNSCR 1441 appears to have been thwarted. Apparently the president has decided to depend upon his War Against Terrorism authority.
"I have no greater responsibility than protecting the American people. Should military action [against Iraq] become necessary for our own security, I will commit the full force and might of the United States' military, and we will prevail," he said.
How will he decide when military action has become necessary? It will depend upon what the UN inspectors discover. It is up to the UNSC to decide what is tolerable under UNSCR 1441. The UNSC would likely not view -- for example -- their finding a vial of camelpox to be grounds for lynching Saddam.
However, for prosecuting the War Against Terrorism in Iraq, it's up to the president to decide what is tolerable, and President Bush has adopted a 'zero threshold' policy. Apparently, a vial of camelpox will serve as well as a dozen nukes as a casus belli.
<A HREF="">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
