The no-fly zones were never specifically authorised by UN resolutions. The
northern zone became irrelevant after Iraq withdrew troops from the north
and the US also withdrew after a Kurdish faction called in help from Hussein
to oust a competing faction supported by the US and Iran! Before that at
least the northern no fly zone could be understood as giving some protection
to relief operations on the ground. In the south there was even less
rationale for the no-fly zone. The south zone was extended north when
Hussein helped a Kurdish faction in the north. The no fly zones never
hampered Turkish operations and incursions against the Kurds..
The no-fly zones are obvious violations of Iraqi sovereignty. Talk about
Newspeak. Now attempts to assert sovereignty are grounds for war. The US
cares not one bit that UN resolutions are actually irrelevant to what the US
claims and even Britain acknowledges this. The UN is relevant only insofar
as it can be interpreted as supporting US policy of replacing Hussein no
matter what..
Cheers, Ken Hanly
.
Nov. 19
- By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Barely two weeks after the United Nations adopted
a new resolution on Iraq, the Bush administration is insisting that firing
on U.S. and British planes over the "no-fly" zone is a violation of the
measure.
None of the other 14 members of the U.N. Security Council, including
Britain, believe the no-fly zone is included in the resolution, much less a
possible cause for a violation.
For the moment, diplomats on all sides are keeping quiet after Iraqi troops
on Monday again fired on allied aircraft, bringing harsh criticism from the
United States.
But several Western envoys, speaking on condition of anonymity, said eight
weeks of arduous negotiations would be for naught if Washington continued,
in their eyes, to misinterpret resolution 1441, adopted on Nov. 8, and then
expected support for any future action against Iraq.
"It's one thing to keep up 'zero tolerance' to put the squeeze on Iraq," one
council source said. "But in practice they know perfectly well that the
other 14 council members were voting for disarmament, not the no-fly zone,
or there would have been no vote."
In Washington, Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman, said on Monday,
"The United States believes that firing upon our aircraft in the no-fly zone
or British aircraft is a violation. It is a material breach."
'ASSESS AND REVIEW'
McClellan said President Bush's policy toward Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
remained one of "zero tolerance" and that clashes over the no-flight zones
were "something that we will assess and review" and reserve the option to
bring before the Security Council.
But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in Chile for a meeting with Western
hemisphere defense ministers, was more measured than he had been on the
issue in recent weeks.
"I do find it unacceptable that Iraq fires," Rumsfeld told a new conference
in Santiago. "It is for the president of the United States and the U.N.
Security Council to make judgments about their view of Iraq's behavior over
a period of time."
Iraq does not recognize the flight exclusion zones, set up by the United
States and Western allies unilaterally after the 1991 Gulf War to prevent
Baghdad from attacking rebellious Kurds in the North. Later the zone was
expanded to prevent attacks against Shi'ite Muslims in the south.
Paragraph 8 of the Nov. 8 resolution says Baghdad cannot "take or threaten
hostile acts" against a U.N. member "seeking to uphold any council
resolution."
MATTER OF PERSONNEL
British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock, co-sponsor of the resolution, told
the Security Council before the vote that paragraph 8 referred to any
personnel that the inspectors might ask to help them and not the no-fly
zones. Diplomats assumed Britain and the United States had coordinated
interpretations.
Shortly after the 15-0 vote, Russia's U.N. ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, in his
public council speech, echoed this view, attributing it to "sponsors of the
draft."
And a French diplomat said, "We were listening to the co-sponsor, Ambassador
Greenstock, and believed what he said."
Some U.S. officials say Washington would not use the Iraqi attacks in the
no-fly zone as a sole trigger for war, nor necessarily report them. But U.N.
Security Council members say the issue is not one that should be discussed
in connection with the resolution.
"To get allies, the United States is going to have to look and behave as if
it wants to achieve disarmament and wants to avoid war," another diplomat
said.
Resolution 1441 gives Iraq one last chance to disarm or face "serious
consequences." U.N. weapons inspectors, who just returned to Iraq after a
four-year hiatus, have to report or verify any major violation to the
Security Council. U.S. officials have already claimed the right to do the
reporting themselves without back up from the inspectors.
