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: Hawkmoon who wrote (123942)	1/29/2004 5:01:04 PM
From: boris_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Boris.. why don't you simply read 1441 again:" Excellent proposition. un.org From UNSC 1441 protocol: JOHN NEGROPONTE (United States) said: "The resolution contained, he said, no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution. .... If the Security Council failed to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violation, the resolution did not constrain any Member State from acting" JEREMY GREENSTOCK (United Kingdom) said "He said there was no “automaticity” in the resolution. If there was a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter would return to the Council..." JEAN-DAVID LEVITTE (France) said "France welcomed the lack of “automaticity” in the final resolution. ... Moreover, the resolution gave the IAEA and UNMOVIC better tools to do their job, and ensured impartiality." ZHANG YISHAN (China): "The purpose was to disarm Iraq, and it no longer contained any “automaticity” for the use of force. The Council must meet again if there was non-compliance by Iraq. ...In adopting the resolution, the Council maintained its role in maintaining peace and security." No automaticity was the keyword, agreed by all. Thus 1441 is no way an authorization for individual members to use military force and occupate.