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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: A. Geiche who wrote (377453)	3/24/2003 1:50:37 AM
From: A. Geiche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Professor Francis Lamand: ‘This Is Not War But Naked Aggression’-- Abdul Wahab Bashir, Arab News Staff ----- VIVA LA FRANCE! JEDDAH, 24 March 2003 — Was Iraq in violation of Security Council Resolution 1441 to justify this war? According to a French international lawyer, resorting to force is not possible without prior verification of any violation by Iraq and without an explicit resolution from the Council authorizing the use of force, which in both cases did not happen. With the US-led war against Iraq in progress, a search is under way for cause for a legal action to prevent a repeat of a conflict that has divided the world and pitted close Western allies against each other. According to Professor Francis Lamand, a lawyer and president of the Paris-based “Islam and the West” organization, the text of Resolution 1441, specifically stipulates that in case Iraq fails to comply with UN resolutions on arms control and imposed disarmament modalities, this would constitute a new violation of Iraq’s obligations and has to be reported to the Security Council for qualification. “The fact is, however, that there has been no new verification of such violations, nor any explicit UN resolution on the use of force. This means the recourse to the use of force by the United States and Britain is in violation of the provisions of Resolution 1441. Claiming that this resolution justifies the use of force is contrary to the letter and spirit of its contents,” Professor Lamand told Arab News. Realizing that they stood no chance of gaining the approval of the majority of the Council members, the US and the UK preferred to resort to force unilaterally. “This is a lawless act of violence, a deliberate unprecedented violation of the UN Charter and of the fundamental rules of international law. No interpretation of the resolution could credibly point implicitly to the recourse to force. To contend otherwise is to falsify the text and leads to a flagrant illegality.” Professor Lamand launched what he termed “a pressing appeal” for the creation, as soon as possible, of a committee of highly qualified jurists under the aegis of the UN to “determine the different legal aspects of the aggression committed by the American and British troops and draw future plans for necessary rulings based on the rules of international public order. “The role of this international commission of lawyers at this historic juncture would be to qualify, legally speaking, the joint action taken by the Americans and the British.” He said no single country or group of countries should go against a binding resolution that subjects the use of force to explicit authorization from the Security Council. In this particular case, he added, only 40 countries of the UN family of 191 nations support the US-UK unilateral action, while the Security Council in its majority opposed the use of force. He recalled a similar situation when attacks were perpetrated without clear UN authorization including the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 by the Soviet Army to break the popular uprising against the communist regime in Prague. “These attacks have all been condemned by the international community including the US itself. The situation today is different. Here we don’t only have a case of aggression committed without UN authorization but an aggression against the provisions of a UN resolution.” Professor Lamand said no country has the right to unilaterally wage war claiming it has a UN mandate to do so. “Any mandate authorizing the use of force can only be an explicit one, without which a country that resorts to the use of force places itself outside the bounds of legality.” He stressed that what the world was facing now was “not a war but aggression,” since war has its own specific rules that do not apply here. “Today, regrettably, there is no legal instrument to put an end to the use of force by the countries that have invaded Iraq. Only a UN-led armed intervention through the deployment of forces in Iraq could put an end to the aggression. This, however, does not seem likely, as it could lead to a global confrontation. “Only certain countries trying to gain favor with the US approved (this aggression). It is the eternal conflict between the rule of law and the rule of force. History shows that violation of law leads to the negation of international public order and to the undermining of civilization.” Commenting on the French position which angered the Americans and resulted in growing tension between the two countries, he said what was of concern to France was neither what advantages it could gain or would lose but rather to “remain faithful to its traditions, to the principles that form the foundation of any true democracy” and constitute real international public order. “By defending the rule of law against the rule of force, France has gained credit. This is a feeling unanimously expressed by public opinion across the globe.” Professor Lamand said he was “pained by the anti-French campaigns conducted in the US.” He called on the Americans to refresh their memories and not to forget the assistance extended to them by France during their war of independence. “As for the accusation of ingratitude, let me just recall here that the independence of America from English domination was mainly helped along by a French general, the Marquis de la Fayette. Is the Americans’ memory failing them?” Likening President Jacques Chirac to Gen. de Gaulle, Professor Lamand said the overwhelming majority of French public opinion was in full support of Chirac, who is resolutely opposed to the use of force against Iraq as long as other peaceful means have not been exhausted. “The voice of President Chirac is that of the late General de Gaulle; the voice of legality, human rights and justice. It is my argument that the popularity and public support enjoyed by Chirac are equal to those enjoyed by de Gaulle who, on his return to power in 1958, had a record exceeding 80 percent in terms of public support. I am proud as a Frenchman to link President Chirac with the founding principles of French democracy, the universal democracy.”>>>