Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arun gera who wrote (74214)	2/15/2003 11:50:22 AM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 281500

What if UN does not conclude "Material Breach", and US attacks Iraq, would US be in breach of some UN Law? I dont think so. If you read 1441, it is pretty clear that Iraq was already in "material breach". If the UN came out with a resolution that said that they no longer were, that might be the case....but without any specific resolution it seems to me that that they would continue to be in MB of all of the previous resolutions. I also think that any logical reading of 1441 shows that they are in MB of 1441, per Blix's testimony. The UN just refuses to acknowledge this. The language of 1441 seems pretty compelling and clear to me. The entire cease-fire was based on Iraq complying with resolution 687....1441 says they never did so. un.int Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, snip.... Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, snip.... Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

To: arun gera who wrote (74214)	2/15/2003 6:56:36 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What if UN does not conclude "Material Breach", and US attacks Iraq, would US be in breach of some UN Law? I would suspect not. Theres wiggle room : Iraq is in breach of 687 which came at the end of the 1st war, and that formed the background to 1441.

To: arun gera who wrote (74214)	2/16/2003 12:37:27 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 281500

would US be in breach of some UN Law? There is no such thing as a "UN Law." The resolution was worded with enough wiggle room that the US could act without another resolution. The resolution only calls for "consultations", not resolution. Everyone knows well that Iraq is in material breach, that's why the discussion has been spun to be whether or not inspections, given enough time, can DISARM Saddam. If you note, no one is talking about whether or not Iraq will comply, whether or not Iraq has the weapons, whether or not Iraq is hiding the weapons, but whether or not the inspectors can find them all or, disingeniously, keep Iraq off balance so they can't be developed any more or used. It's a sham. Derek