The UNSC opposed an invasion and any move to invade Iraq in the name of the UN would have been vetoed, so we scuttled our own plans to put a motion in front of the UNSC.
Two or three nations do not make up the UNSC, especially when UNSC 1441 was passed unanimously declaring Iraq to be in material breach of its obligations of the cease-fire accord (UNSC 687).
No invasion of Iraq was EVER given a green light by the UN and Bush Sr. knew that he could not go in and take out Saddam with UN backing.
What did Clinton have to say about this after he launched Operation "Desert Fox" in 1998, after Saddam refused to cooperate with UNSCOM?
fas.org
Iraq ignored the Security Council?s demands until November 14, when U.S.
and British forces prepared to launch air strikes on Iraq. Baghdad
initially tried to impose unacceptable conditions on its offer of
resumption of cooperation; however, the United States and Great Britain
insisted on strict com-pliance with all relevant Security Council
resolutions.
2
Subsequently, Iraq agreed in writing in letters to the U.N. Secretary
General to rescind its August 5 and October 31 decisions and to resume full
cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in accordance with Security Council
resolutions. Iraq informed the Security Council on November 14 that it was
the "clear and unconditional decision of the Iraqi government to resume
cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA."
On November 15, the Security Council issued a statement in which it
stressed that Iraq?s commitment "needs to be established by unconditional
and sustained cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA in
exercising the full range of their activities provided for in their
mandates."
UNSCOM and the IAEA resumed their full range of activities on November 17,
but Iraq repeatedly violated its commitment of cooperation. As Chairman
Butler?s report of December 14 details, Iraq has, over the course of the
last 8 years, refused to provide the key documents and critical
explanations about its prohibited weapons programs in response to UNSCOM?s
outstanding requests. It refused to allow removal of missile engine
components, denied access to missile test data, restricted photography of
bombs, and endangered the safety of inspectors by aggressively maneuvering
a helicopter near them. Iraq failed to provide requested access to
archives and effectively blocked UNSCOM from visiting a site on November
25.
On December 4 and again on December 11, Iraq further restricted UNSCOM?s
activities by asserting that certain teams could not inspect on Fridays,
the Muslim sabbath, despite 7 years of doing so and the fact that other
inspection teams? activities were not restricted on Fridays. Iraq blocked
access to offices of the ruling Ba?ath Party on December 9, which UNSCOM
held "solid evidence" contained prohibited materials. Iraq routinely
removed documents from facilities prior to inspection, and initiated new
forms of restrictions on UNSCOM?s work. We also have information that Iraq
ordered the military to destroy WMD-related documents in anticipation of
the UNSCOM inspections.
Iraq?s actions were a material breach of the Gulf War cease-fire resolution
(UNSC Resolution 687), the February 23, 1998, Annan-Aziz Memorandum of
Understanding, and Iraq?s November 14 commitment to the Security Council.
The threat to the region posed by Iraq?s refusal to cooperate
unconditionally with UNSCOM, and the consequent inability of UNSCOM to
carry out the respon-sibilities the Security Council entrusted to it, could
not be tolerated. These circumstances led the United States and the United
Kingdom to use military force to degrade Iraq?s capacity to threaten its
neighbors through the development of WMD and long-range delivery systems.
During Desert Fox, key WMD sites and the facilities of the organizations
that conceal them, as well as important missile repair facilities and
surface-to-air missile sites, were attacked. Operation Desert Fox degraded
Saddam?s ability to threaten his neighbors militarily.
UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors withdrew from Iraq on December 15 when Chairman
Butler reported that inspectors were not able to conduct the substantive
disarmament work required of UNSCOM by the Security Council. The United
States continues to support UNSCOM and the IAEA as the agreed mechanisms
for Iraq to demon-strate its compliance with UNSC resolutions concerning
disarmament.....
.... As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he represents a threat to the
well-being of his people, the peace of the region, and the security of the
world. We will continue to contain the threat he poses, but over the long
term the best way to address that threat is through a new government in
Baghdad. To that end, we -- working with the Congress -- are deepening our
engagement with the forces for change in Iraq to help make the opposition a
more effective voice for the aspirations of the Iraqi people. Our efforts
are discussed in more detail below....
....On November 30, the Iraqis failed to meet a deadline to provide various
documents Chairman Butler requested pertaining to Iraq?s chemical weapons
program. Included in this request was the Iraqi Air Force file of
documents found previously by UNSCOM inspectors that details chemical
weapons expended during the Iran-Iraq war. We understand that UNSCOM
believes the file indicates that Iraq?s official declarations to UNSCOM
have greatly overstated the quantities of chemical weapons expended, which
means that at least 6,000 chemical weapons are unaccounted.
PLEASE NOTE that the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION declared Iraq to be in "MATERIAL BREACH of the Gulf War cease-fire resolution
(UNSC Resolution 687), the February 23, 1998, Annan-Aziz Memorandum of Understanding, and Iraq's November 14 commitment to the Security Council."
Thus, Iraq was recognized as being in material breach of the cease-fire in 1998, and the US/Britain used force in an attempt to force Saddam back into the inspections process.
And what was the response from the UNSC?
The SAME three members, France, Russia, and China, condemned the attacks AND THEN CALLED FOR THE SANCTIONS TO BE LIFTED and firing of Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM:
In reaction to the attack, three of five permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia, France, and the People's Republic of China) called for lifting of the eight-year oil embargo on Iraq, recasting or disbanding UNSCOM, and firing its chairman, Australian diplomat Richard Butler.
en.wikipedia.org
Now what gives? These three countries demand the sanctions be lifted against Iraq, DESPITE the fact that Saddam is clearly in material breach of the cease-fire, yet they vote for UNSC 1441, which later under the Bush administration, declared that Iraq was in material breach??
Just face some facts.. the primary opposition to overthrowing Saddam was from the nations that WERE MOST PROFITING FROM THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH IRAQ via illegal trade and the oil for food folly.
France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2]
In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]
France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil.[4] In 2002, the non-war price per barrel of oil was $25. Based on that average these two fields have the potential to provide a gross return near $650 billion.
France’s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.[5]
In 2001 French carmaker Renault SA sold $75 million worth of farming equipment to Iraq.[6]
More objections have been lodged against French export contracts with Iraq than any other exporting country under the oil-for-food program, according to a report published by the London Times. In addition French companies have signed contracts with Iraq worth more than $150 million that are suspected of being linked to its military operations.[7] Some of the goods offered by French companies to Iraq, detailed by UN documents, include refrigerated trucks that can be used as storage facilities and mobile laboratories for biological weapons.
Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and ‘80s.[8]
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.[9]
So if you don't like the fact that Saddam was overthrown, you have a choice of 3 nations you can definitely move to where your opinion might actually find appreciation (Spain would probably an option as well since Aznar is gone).
I suggest you pack your bags and move somewhere that people will agree with your illogical and utterly false rants and raves.
Hawk |
