The UN, US and Iraq IV

I meant the inclusive "you," Steve.

Quote:

but this is what so many of you wanted... A governmet of, by and for Iraqis. Well, this is what they decided to do.

You were prepared for them to form a theocracy... Why is this choice so shocking?

Didn't mean you specifically.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

>We have failed to get significant international support
not our failing, but theirs.

Ehm ... 'no-one agrees with me / likes me, but thats just them'?
Well, I guess if its a kid who's being bullied who says that, I'd encourage him. If its the guy with the biggest weapons saying that, I get worried.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Sofia wrote:

>We have failed to get significant international support
not our failing, but theirs.

Ehm ... 'no-one agrees with me / likes me, but thats just them'?
Well, I guess if its a kid who's being bullied who says that, I'd encourage him. If its the guy with the biggest weapons saying that, I get worried.

I didn't think that would pass so long without comment. :wink:

IMV, if they'd disagreed in principle, it would just be our tough luck. When they agreed in principle, but sort of sat on their hands as Saddam kept thwarting the spirit of the inspections process, I blamed them for not stepping up.

Just my own little opinion.

0 Replies

Sofia, But isn't the fact that the UN inspectors were there to seek out Saddam's WMD's, and we had control of the no fly zone mean anything? What was the "urgency?"

0 Replies

Anyway ... it seems I have interpreted Kofi Annan's speech (excerpts and comments) quite differently from the rest of the world (hey, it happens to me too ;-))

(I just came back from the library, to look at the different headlines and analyses of the respective speeches in the media around here. Examples will be in next post.)

Way I saw it - we already knew he looked with stern disagreement on the unilateral, pre-emptive war policy of the US vis-a-vis Iraq - so that part of the speech was no surprise.

The new part in it, to me, was the subsequent bit ... about how we should understand what background the policy had come from (post-911), and that, exactly because one needed to remain in principled opposition to its underlying concept, the UN all the more owed countries in such situations a credible alternative course of action - suggesting that such an alternative hadnt been in place yet. Thaz the way I took it, anyway.

Reading the summary on his website, first, then the transcript itself, it sounded like a very conciliatory position to stake out, especially in contrast to Chirac's speech.

Apparently, though, I'd underestimated how formal and discrete UN diplomacy usually is - and how remarkable, therefore, Annan's public rebuke of the US had been.

Yes, we already knew he had looked onto its Iraq war with stern disagreement - but speaking his mind about it like that apparently was quite a sensational move of public condemnation. Thats what the media picked up on - Bush came to the UN for help, but insisting on defiantly defending his government's every past move, he received almost blanket, and unusually candid, rebukes instead.

0 Replies

I thought 12 years was more than enough time.
Had he complied, I would have been against the pre-emptive strike.
I know some believe he was complying. I don't.
During the 12 years, he proved, at least to me, he had no intention of allowing open inspections and full disclosure.
He was pulling our chain.

0 Replies

Lots of nations pull the US chain. Remember that you are talking about the criteria for pre-emption.

Lots of nations jerk the UN around, the US did, Isreal has for longer than Saddam.

Even if Saddam were to refuse inspections completely it makes no case for unilateral unprovoked agression.

The determinantion of compliance and punishment for lack of compliance with a UN resolution is granted only by the UN.

There is no room in the UN charter for nations to arbitrarily (and against the determinantion of the majority) to invoke UN cover for their unprovoked agressions.

"My neighbour refuses to allow me to inspect his wife's vagina. He's on probabtion for violating a court order and despite the fact that the court disagrees with my notion of being justified in bombing his house I feel it was right. For I determined that he was jerking the court's chain. I simply do not care if the court disagrees, it's irrelevant (except when I invoke its rulings to bomb my neighbours house)."

0 Replies

Sofia's quote: "He was pulling our chain." If that's now the criteria for a preemptive strike to kill at will, we have become the terrorist.

0 Replies

"The morning after" ...

Quote:

Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Germany

Annan Warns against "Law of the Jungle"

General Secretary criticizes US policy of preventive war / President Bush again asks for reconstruction help

[..] The general debate at the UN has started off with an exchange of blows between General Secretary Kofi Annan and US President George Bush about the legitimacy of the Iraq war

[..] The exchange was classified as extraordinary by observers, foremost because Annan normally doesnt voice critical notes in the General Assembly against a specific country.

Le Monde, France

Chirac Defends UN against Bush

* Disagreements between France and US remain deep
* Chirac to the defence of multilateralism and UN reform
* "Noone can act alone in the name of all"
* Kofi Annan denounces unilateral resort to force

De Standaard, Belgium

Bush Insists on Leading Role US in Iraq

[..] Many countries had expected, or hoped, that Bush would take a conciliatory tone, perhaps even admit, in between the lines, that he'd underestimated the task of creating a democratic and prosperous Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

But the American president refrained from any of that and repeated that the war against Iraq was justified in the context of the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of WMD.

De Volkskrant, Netherlands

Kofi Annan Lashes out Harshly at US

UN Chief criticizes "preventive" war

[Annan] did not name the US a single time, but his words could not be understood as anything but a sharp rebuke of the American action in Iraq.

[President Bush] gave a harnassed account about the legitimacy of the war against Iraq, which he again placed in the light of the war against terrorism.

Algemeen Dagblad, Netherlands

Kofi Annan Slates Policy Bush

[..] In sharp wordings, UN chief Kofi Annan has condemned the Bush doctrine of preventive war. Solistic action to smother potential dangers - as in Iraq - leads to more violence and the anarchy of the jungle, Annan warned.

Trouw, Netherlands

Bush defends his solo action in Iraq

[..] The uncompromising points of view and rigid tone of Bush and Chirac showed that they remain poised in resolute opposition to each other.

British newspapers in next post ...

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Lots of nations pull the US chain. Remember that you are talking about the criteria for pre-emption.

Lots of nations jerk the UN around, the US did, Isreal has for longer than Saddam.

Even if Saddam were to refuse inspections completely it makes no case for unilateral unprovoked agression.

The determinantion of compliance and punishment for lack of compliance with a UN resolution is granted only by the UN.

There is no room in the UN charter for nations to arbitrarily (and against the determinantion of the majority) to invoke UN cover for their unprovoked agressions.

"My neighbour refuses to allow me to inspect his wife's vagina. He's on probabtion for violating a court order and despite the fact that the court disagrees with my notion of being justified in bombing his house I feel it was right. For I determined that he was jerking the court's chain. I simply do not care if the court disagrees, it's irrelevant (except when I invoke its rulings to bomb my neighbours house)."

But your forgetting WHY there was a resolution against Iraq. Hussein had a history. War with Iran and an Invasion of Kuwait. As punishment for his invasion, he had to submit to the will of the UN. Hussein refused and the UN was either powerless, or voluntarily chose to do nothing about Hussein's continued refusal to submit to the 4 or 5 previous UN resolutions. What in Husseins history would lead you to believe that he would suddenly straighten up and start following what the world had to say?

The US had and continues to have a large investment of resources and capital in the middle east. If the world wasn't going to do anything about Hussein, then, by damn, we would and did.

0 Replies

Also in Le Monde (splitting this away from the post above, because it was only an aside in the article and thus doesnt belong in the overview):

Quote:

[..] Before his [speech], George W. Bush had said, in an interview accorded to Fox News, that he had not a single regret nor a single doubt about the war in Iraq, whether it concerned the conditions in which it was [started], or the situation in which it has resulted.

0 Replies

"My neighbour refuses to allow me to inspect his wife's vagina. He's on probabtion for violating a court order and despite the fact that the court disagrees with my notion of being justified in bombing his house I feel it was right. For I determined that he was jerking the court's chain. I simply do not care if the court disagrees, it's irrelevant (except when I invoke its rulings to bomb my neighbours house)."

If your neighbor was previously ordered by the court to allow you to inspect her vagina, and your neighbor kept denying you your right to do so--and you went back to the court, and they issued proclamations demanding you the right to inspect said vagina--and you continued to attempting your right to do so--and you went to the court, and said HEY, he's still not allowing me to inspect that damn vagina-- and the court said, Well, give him some more time. He did have you over for dinner, and showed you a really good flick, starring Pam Anderson... I don't think the court, or the guy should be terribly surprised when you take care of business.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

But your forgetting WHY there was a resolution against Iraq.

Not at all, due to his history I supported a forcible removal of Saddam from power.

McGentrix wrote:

As punishment for his invasion, he had to submit to the will of the UN.

Boldface mine.

McGentrix wrote:

Hussein refused and the UN was either powerless, or voluntarily chose to do nothing about Hussein's continued refusal to submit to the 4 or 5 previous UN resolutions.

The characterization of the UN as "powerless" is a favorite among the more militaristic Americans. But this is simply untrue and is used selectively.

When the UN condemns Israel this demographic says the UN is racist, biased etc and that the UN resolutions that have gone against Israel (all of which are resolutions the US allowed by not vetoing) are invalid.

Then they turn around and say the UN is "helpless" against Saddam.

These are subjective qualifiers and an easy case can be made against the notion you put forward.

Why, for example, do many think the UN chose "inaction" with Iraq?

That claim is patently false, the UN simply chose different action but the popular characterization of this in militaristic circles is "sitting on their hands" etc.

This is simply untrue. The UN's resolution to remove WMDs from Iraq is looking to have been as sucessful as one could expect.

Furthermore when you said "will of the UN" you highlighted a key point.

If you consider the US justified in going against the will of the UN what cause do you have to invoke the UN's name in justifying the US actions?

This is duplicity of a very obvious nature. I think there were many valid reasons to invade Iraq, there is really no need to resort to a fallacy.

The US can't have its cake and eat it. We can't declare UN resolutions to be a valid casus belli based on unilateral interpretation of the resolutions.

Like in my example, it's allowing anarchy. If the US is free to interpret the resolutions themselves and wage an unprovoked war then Iraq is just as justified to interpret their compliance with the resolution themselves as well.

If you want to use the UN rulings as the basis for an argument you can't be selective with them.

What in Husseins history would lead you to believe that he would suddenly straighten up and start following what the world had to say?

McGentrix wrote:

The US had and continues to have a large investment of resources and capital in the middle east. If the world wasn't going to do anything about Hussein, then, by damn, we would and did.

The world was doing something. Saddam was contained and disarmed. The world simply didn't go along with the pretext proposed to them and for this they are given the characterization of doing nothing.

It's folly to characterize as nothing what one disagrees with. The bottom line is that the world thought one course of action was justified and was pursuing it while some rogue nations decided they wanted to wage a "pre-emptive" war. Whether the war was justified or not I will leave open, but disagreement with the war is no basis for the argument that those who disagreed favored doing nothing.

BTW, crime is a threat. Do you plan to do nothing about it or will you help me bomb the ghettos and force minorities to have abortions?

I can't let you sit around and let cops and courts handle this, you can't just sit on your hands. The choice is to agree with my course of action (bombing ghettos and aborting minorities) or you become part of the problem, not the solution.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

If your neighbor was previously ordered by the court to allow you to inspect her vagina, and your neighbor kept denying you your right to do so--and you went back to the court, and they issued proclamations demanding you the right to inspect said vagina--and you continued to attempting your right to do so--and you went to the court, and said HEY, he's still not allowing me to inspect that damn vagina-- and the court said, Well, give him some more time. He did have you over for dinner, and showed you a really good flick, starring Pam Anderson... I don't think the court, or the guy should be terribly surprised when you take care of business.

Sofia,

The "court" in question is the UN. And no, they did not authorize US inspections. They authorized UN inspections that had to be abandoned by the US declaration of war.

The duplicity I mention above is that militaristic types seem to think we are the UN when they want to invoke a UN resolution and that the UN is a bunch of incompetents when the UN does not think the way they do.

0 Replies

nimh,

I was very surprised an Kofi's statement. I have been surprised at all of his rebukes. While I agree with them I am surprised at such diplomatic language.

This war has been something that has turned the tables of diplomacy upside-down.

Reading the nuance of diplo-speak is a favorite pastime of mine and these last two years have been hard to read as everyone's rhetoric went through the roof.

0 Replies

The Morning After, Pt II
(French, German, Belgian, Dutch newspapers in part I, above)

Quote:

The Times, United Kingdom

Bush Pleads for World Help to Rebuild Iraq

Annan and Chirac lead attack on America's unilateral action

[President Bush] mounted an uncompromising defence of his war on Iraq as he pleaded for international money and troops.

The Guardian, United Kingdom

Bush Isolated after Speech to UN Falls Flat

[..] George Bush was increasingly isolated on the global stage yesterday as he defied intense criticism from a litany of world leaders at the United Nations over the war on Iraq.

The Daily Telegraph, United Kingdom

France and US Unite to Fight WMD

Bush urges UN to stop proliferation

The Independent, United Kingdom

World Leaders Attack Bush after His Appeal to the UN

President George Bush was the target of a series of stinging rebukes from other world leaders [..].

Mr. Chirac's sentiments were echoed by Secretary General Kofi Annan: [..] "My concern is that [the logic of of pre-emptive action] could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification", Mr. Annan told the assembly to sustained applause.

More of "What the Papers Say" in a Guardian overview which has Le Figaro (France), Libération (France), Gulf News, The Daily Star (Lebanon), The Indian Express and Daily Nation (Kenya).

0 Replies

Craven--
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the UN approved of the Gulf War, and the cease fire agreement we authored with Saddam.

He broke that agreement.

0 Replies

You are wrong. The UN did not sanction our self-nomination as judge jury and executioner.

The US broke that agreement as well BTW.

0 Replies

Australia's response:

Howard wades in after Chirac and Annan savage Bush over invasion
By Caroline Overington in New York and Mark Riley
September 25, 2003

The rift between the United States and other members of the UN Security Council has widened, with the US President, George Bush, and President Jacques Chirac of France in open conflict over the right to invade Iraq and how quickly power should be transferred to Iraqi citizens.

Mr Bush told the UN General Assembly on Tuesday that the US had been right to topple Saddam Hussein and defend the "credibility of the United Nations".

That view, already rejected by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, was immediately tackled by Mr Chirac, who said no nation had the right to use force "preventively", and by Russia's Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, who suggested that the US had acted outside international law.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, reacted angrily yesterday to Mr Chirac's comments.

The French had adopted an "utterly opportunistic" position on Iraq from the outset, he said.

"It may suit countries like France now to say you shouldn't do anything without a new Security Council resolution," he said. "Countries like France haven't always adopted that attitude in the past. I believe the coalition led by the United States did the right thing.

"Those who advocated another course have to accept that if their advice had been followed, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq . . ."

In further Australian response, the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, circulated a speech for delivery later in which he said

Australia was a "strong supporter" of multilateral processes, "but only insofar as they are a means to an effective end".

"Collectivity ought not serve as a mantra which is an obstacle to effective action. The conviction that states must uphold international norms, particularly in relation to weapons of mass destruction, led Australia to join the coalition to disarm Iraq."

0 Replies

If he had no WMD, how is that breaking the agreement with the UN?
Bush better find those WMD 'cause it will be his downfall.

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know