The conflicted liberal viewpoint on Iraq

[GePap]

The UN worked in 1990 becuase the issue back then was a clear one: one state had invaded another, it had broken the cardinal rule (of course it is not that simple, the state happened to pick an economically important spot and it lacked council friends to block action) and thus it was simple to demand action and get it. Today the point of the war is a nebulous threat, and the arguemnt that one can't go around not listening to UN SC resoltutions. The problems witht eh second argument are:

1) The only reason the US gets to jerk the UN around is because it has a veto. If nigeria decided to 'enforce UN sec Council" resolutions using a "coolition of the willing" while the big five sat ont heir hands, they would get away with it. As I said elsewhere, the UN charter does not allow for posses, willing or otherwise. The fact that the US will get away with itself violating the charter is because it is a veto power with the ability for itself to ignore the UN.

2) As long as the vto system holds, any state with Big five friends gets to ignore all the UN sec council resolutions it wants. Iraq is getting picked on because it is weak, and has no firend sthat find it politically vital, or strategically vital, to keep Saddam around. The whole iraq debate has everything to do with the US of US power. Iraq is simply the victim chosen for the sacrifice.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Prove that it doesn't?

With a phrase like "serious consequences," we're both right. It's so ambiguous that it can mean anything.

Entirely open to interpretation....just as the SC wanted it.

-=Vel=-

Vel, you're too much.

You admit that war was not the aim of the SC's resolution. It was quite probably the aim of some of its members, but also probably not enough to pass it.

But you persist in making the argument that this needs to be done to uphold the SC's will?

The fact is that this entire episode has only had one effect: those on the SC who disagree with the current unilateral/bilateral US/UK implementation of 1441 will simply be less willing to compromise on the language of future resolutions.

And that just means that the UNSC won't pass anything of any meaning.

Because instead of deciding to consult with its partners, and all of its partners on implementing 1441, the US has only seeked out "like-minded nations" to join it in doing what it had already decided on.

Which is a neat trick, and works. Once.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by GePap

1) The only reason the US gets to jerk the UN around is because it has a veto. If nigeria decided to 'enforce UN sec Council" resolutions using a "coolition of the willing" while the big five sat ont heir hands, they would get away with it. As I said elsewhere, the UN charter does not allow for posses, willing or otherwise. The fact that the US will get away with itself violating the charter is because it is a veto power with the ability for itself to ignore the UN.

Two things.
Firstly, the UN authorizes action. It does not implement it, demand it or require it. The US (and allies) was authorized to enact the prior resolution and did so. The armistice (and its terms, rconditions, etc) was signed by the Iraqis and US/Allied forces. If Iraq breaches these then it breaches an agreement with the US/Allies, not the UN, and another UN security council resolution may not even be required for any "followup" action.

Secondly, the way the UN is currently set up, the aggressor party under indictment does not have the Veto power (or a vote on the SC if one of the other SC members) - hence would require a veto from one of the other members.

[GePap]

Two things.
Firstly, the UN authorizes action. It does not implement it, demand it or require it. The US (and allies) was authorized to enact the prior resolution and did so. The armistice (and its terms, rconditions, etc) was signed by the Iraqis and US/Allied forces. If Iraq breaches these then it breaches an agreement with the US/Allies, not the UN, and another UN security council resolution may not even be required for any "followup" action.

Secondly, the way the UN is currently set up, the aggressor party under indictment does not have the Veto power (or a vote on the SC if one of the other SC members) - hence would require a veto from one of the other members.

2 things:

I disagree with your take on this. Compare the UN to a court. No court enforces actions on its own, it authorizes, makes them legal and legitmizes them, and somebody else enforces them. Who actually enforces is meaningless. their action is only valid under the authority of the UN. Further action to bring into complience must also be authorized by the UN, since the enforcers actions only have legitmacy within the framework of the UN. As for what "followup can be taken" that is decided by the authorizing resolutions themselves. If one is sufficently vague, as is 1441, you can probalby get away with taking action without direct authorization for it in some follwup.

A veto memebr would never be brought up to the Sec Council. The other veto powers, unless the act is directed squarely against them, have no incentive to allow anyone in the UN review over their actions. Which is why the UN did nothing about Afghanistan, or any other situation in which one of the 5 veto holders could have been designated as the aggressor.

[Ned]

GePap, You make a good observation. The SC does not control the actions of the permanent members due to their veto. In its early years, there was some discussion about whether a GA resolution could override a veto. The charter was never amended.

What the SC controls are threats to peace caused by everyone other than the permanent members.

The US said to the UN that Iraq was a test case. If the UN was willing to enforce its resolutions, the US was willing to work with it. If the UN nows fails to enforce its resolutions, the US will no longer bother with it when US security is at stake.

Even the most die hard UN supporters are going to be hard pressed to say that we must take US security concerns to the UN and get resolutions, sanctions and the like. In the end, it is all a waste of time as the UN will not enforce the resolutions - meaning the target of any resolutions can ignore the UN with impunity and US security is degraded.

Tomorrow is a defining moment for the UN. It's future is at stake.

[DuncanK]

Ah the UN was never ****. People just argue that the UN should do this or that, or that such and such country should get UN authorization when it suits their needs. I don't know why so much time is spent discussing it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Tomorrow is a defining moment for the UN. It's future is at stake.

No, the US' is.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Tomorrow is a defining moment for the UN. It's future is at stake.

I don't see how that's the case. Right now, it's the US that's jerking people around, not the UN.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by GePap

I disagree with your take on this. Compare the UN to a court. No court enforces actions on its own, it authorizes, makes them legal and legitmizes them, and somebody else enforces them. Who actually enforces is meaningless. their action is only valid under the authority of the UN. Further action to bring into complience must also be authorized by the UN, since the enforcers actions only have legitmacy within the framework of the UN. As for what "followup can be taken" that is decided by the authorizing resolutions themselves. If one is sufficently vague, as is 1441, you can probalby get away with taking action without direct authorization for it in some follwup.

I was under the impression that courts did have legal authority to "direct" an enforcement order to the law enforcement agency in question...
Maybe its just a high degree of cooperation between the two?
In any case though, as the UN definitively doesn't have any enforcement "agency" at its disposal it has to assemble (or rather have a nation or coalition of such assemble) the force required before issuing any "authorizations".
To give the UN the sort of "standing" it needs (read as "face" I guess) it has to be vague in any directives as, if they aren't fulfilled, (and the UN itself doesn't have any clout to fulfill them) the UN thence could lose face and along with it the semblance of moral authority and ability upon which most of its decisions depend.
Read: 90-odd % of UN actions may not require force but this is only because of the 10% that do, and that in those instances the force has been provided when necessary and has done its job. If more of the 10% fail, then force may be needed in more of the other 90%.
Ergo the UN needs the "out" provided by the vague terms and the "delegation" of authority rather than attempting to enforce actions itself.
Imagine if a resolution called for the destruction of the Iraqi regime (for example) and nobody came to the party?

That's my take on it anyway...

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Frogger
Did it threaten the use of force against Iraq in 1441?

It said "or suffer serious concequences".

[Jac de Molay]

Ah the UN was never ****. People just argue that the UN should do this or that, or that such and such country should get UN authorization when it suits their needs. I don't know why so much time is spent discussing it.

This is exactly the way the Administration hawks felt about the current inspection regime. Before the ink was even dry on the new resolutions, hawks like Rummy were dismissing the new set of inspections before they even got in country!!!

Bush had a hard on for war from the get-go, and working through the UN was an afterthought. Instead of a tough, coherent diplomacy, we've been sold fear-mongering and deception that Iraq will somehow become a test-case for democracy in the region

But only at the barrel of a gun. And if its a regime thats to our liking.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DetroitDave


This is exactly the way the Administration hawks felt about the current inspection regime. Before the ink was even dry on the new resolutions, hawks like Rummy were dismissing the new set of inspections before they even got in country!!!

Bush had a hard on for war from the get-go, and working through the UN was an afterthought. Instead of a tough, coherent diplomacy, we've been sold fear-mongering and deception that Iraq will somehow become a test-case for democracy in the region

But only at the barrel of a gun. And if its a regime thats to our liking.

Well, we didn't elect a president that is too good at diplomacy. Too bad that's not his only fault. Still, the UN is not really significant at all except as a place for diplomacy to take place. A place for all the nations to meet. The facilities are all that it amounts too. If France and the US aren't going to agree than they just aren't going to agree.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Hope this doesn't get closed.

I've been having an internal debate with myself for months now.

On the one hand, Saddam Hussein is a bad, bad, bad guy, an autocratic dictator, and we would all be better off if he were not in power.

On the other hand, in Iraq, women can drive cars, go to college, walk alone without a head scarf, have jobs, etc. In Saudi Arabia, "our great ally," women are chased back into a burning building if their faces become uncovered during their escape. So don't tell me that this war is about human rights.

On the one hand, I don't doubt that Saddam Hussein has working on developing chem and bio weapons, and at least has fantasies about working on nukes.

On the other hand, there is no proof of any of this. And even if it were true, it's not like he has the capability to strike the US with these weapons. North Korea, on the other hand... So don't tell me that this war is about weapons.

On the one hand, chances are awful good that there are Al Queda elements living in Iraq, plotting against the Western world.

On the other hand, OBL hates Saddam, called him an infidel--he appealed to the people of Iraq, not the Iraqi government. And there is certainly more Al Queda activity going on in the territory of our dear, dear friends Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So don't tell me that this war is about terrorism.

On the one hand, I acknowledge that victory is assured and likely easy to accomplish.

On the other hand, the madman of Baghdad will almost certainly use tactics that will guarantee significant loss of civilian life, no matter what the eventual military loss. Moreover, victory will only remain as such as long as a friendly government remains in place in Iraq, requiring a continued military presence for years--possibly decades--thereby inciting continued terrorist threats against us. So don't tell me that this war is about expediency.




I am willing to support war against Iraq, as long as someone can tell me just what the hell the war is supposed to be about.

It's about human rights, weapons and expediency. Terrorism is a moot point

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Well, we didn't elect a president that is too good at diplomacy.

In the first place, you didn't elect him, he was appointed by the Supreme Court.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

In the first place, you didn't elect him, he was appointed by the Supreme Court.

Hey, at least the army didn't prop him up. We were in a crisis. The crisis was solved peacefully. I don't care for him either, but what I don't understand is why the world is do hostile towards us.

[Wernazuma III]

Sorry Duncan, it was too tasty to jump on it. At any rate, I do not feel that the hostility was coming from France and Germany in the first place. Many reasons have been given in this thread on why a lot of people out in the world simply aren't convinced about the necessity of an Iraq war or aren't convinced that it will do any good to the future development. Powell keeps telling about WOMD proof while the UN authority on the issue says those claims are partially simply false or not convincing. Yet the US-government stubbornly keeps the same arguments going, Rumsfeld acting like an elephant in a glass store.
The Iraq/Al Quaeda link is ridiculous as almost everyone by now should have understood. Bush &Co. are simply playing with the understandable trauma of Americans after 9/11 by spreading fears and by fanatizing. etc., all well known.
There is no proof for WOMD! says Mr.Blix and the UN (including the US) previously had agreed to give inspections a chance. Obviously they were not serious about it. Well, the rest of the world was. And now many Americans complain that all the talking doesn't get anywhere - there is no new proof, that's why.
While simple Anti-Americanism may be a motivation for some in Europe, it doesn't explain the vast and growing opposition against the current US politics.
The US government now shows clearly that it does not accept any interference or even discussion and no procedures - "He who is not for us is against us" is no basis for negotiation, it's a fundamentalist position. It has been made clear that the US government should be the one and only authority to decide about good and evil. The rest of the world shall trust that daddy knows and just wants the best but can't show the proof- for a good reason of course, for our best...

[Agathon]

The US reason for the war is the interest in preserving US global hegemony.

Who makes this ridiculous and controversial claim?

Well, Bush and co. in the new policy on "pre-emptive strikes." That's who.

Sorry, the rest of the world just doesn't buy it; especially given the pathetic and transparent attempts to justify military action (handily refuted by Mr Blix this morning). The US administration and Blair look like a pack of dumb p**ks who can't bring themselves to tell the public the real reasons they want to go to war.

I also have a response to those who think the US should no longer help other countries.

My answer is: OK - remove all your military forces to within your own borders and leave everyone else alone. That would be just great - problem solved.

Of course they won't do this, because the reason they are there is to protect US power and economic interests, rather than the people they claim to be "protecting".

Wernazuma is right - no proof makes the US look lame.

[Adam Smith]

There is certainly room for debate about the best course of action. Personally, I don't think the US or anybody else should be invading Iraq at this point. Nor did I find the evidence of a terrorist link to be very convincing. But I do not understand how any objective person could look at the evidence that Powell presented on Iraqi compliance and say there is nothing there as Wernazuma, Agathon, and Blix seem to be saying. All those trucks and bulldozers out in the middle of the desert were all part of "normal" activities? Would you reach the same conclusion about vehicles near NK reactors? Looking the evidence in the in the face, and denying its existence can only damage the credibility of the UN, which is sorely needed right now.

[Seneca]

This is worth a look, and I'd be interested to know what the economics gurus here think about it:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Essentially it's arguing that the decision by Iraq to switch its reserve fund from dollars to euros, and the fear that OPEC as a whole would do the same, was a major factor.

[DinoDoc]

Good God! Someone actually takes the ravings from indymedia.org seriously!

[Agathon]

Blix himself said that Powell's presentation was no proof. How are we supposed to know what the bulldozers and trucks were there for? I don't see how brandishing photos of them counts as "proof." I'm certainly not convinced - I have seen more suspicious looking vehicles parked near my house.

In any case the WMD issue is not the game breaker people think it is. There is no logically compelling connection between the mere Iraqi possession of WMD's and the use of overwhelming force. That is not a sufficient casus belli. There remains the further problem that nothing the US or UK have said counts as a good reason for going to war. WMD's are a good reason for doing something but what that is remains to be argued for.

The credibility of the UN is being rescued by France, Russia and Germany who seem remember what the organisation was formed for (i.e. preventing wars). The credibility of the UN is being threatened by two rogue states that seem hell bent on a war for national gain no matter what the international consensus. The administration of one of these states is also hell bent on demolishing international treaties that don't suit it. France and Germany are not the problem here.

Look - here's how it stands. In almost ever country outside of the US, the Bush administration is seen as promoting a policy of, "we'll do what we like and damn what anyone else thinks." [A good summary of Bush's policy in my opinion] Are you surprised that others find this a less than rosy prospect? Is everyone else just supposed to accept this? Anyone who believes that is a complete moron.

The truth is that Bush is incompetent. In Canada, Germany, the UK, Australia and France (and most other countries I'll bet) the US is seen as the biggest threat to world peace, ahead of Iraq and North Korea! These aren't the opinions of leftist radicals; we are talking about the views of ordinary middle-of-the-road people here. This is all the more galling since Clinton managed a fairly unilateralist policy without creating too much of a stir - Gore would have done it just as easily. Madeleine Albright now looks like a diplomatic genius in comparison (and she wasn't really - she was just pragmatic). Again, The Bush administration is just incompetent.

[DanS]

Seneca: That argument is bizarre. $10 billion in reserves changed to Euros scarcely warrants a mention, even if it directly causes Iran to do the same (which it hasn't). Consider that the war would cost at least $50 billion cash money and many more tens of $ billions in the aftermath.

[Velociryx]

Agathon - I wholeheartedly agree with you re: Bush and Company's competency. They have none. It'd be funny if not for the positions of power they hold.

General comments:

IIRC,
The wording of 1441 was:

non-compliance = serious consequences

I have not seen the latest Blix report, but as of his previous one, his word was that the Iraqi government was not complying.

Given the above, I think the course is fairly clear.

Does he have weapons of mass destruction? Probably not any more, no. We d*cked around so long that he had more than ample opportunity to farm them out to his oh-so-wholesome buddies to hold for him till everybody snooping leaves. Hooray for us!

Is he cooperating? Not according to the first Blix report.

What does that mean?

Serious consequences.

What are "serious consequences"?

Well, they can't be sanctions, since we're already imposing those.

They can't be no-fly zones, since we're already imposing those.

Perhaps we could wash his mouth out with soap? Scold him and make him sit in the corner of one of his thirteen palaces?

Or perhaps we should just go ahead and say it.

The UN does not mean what it says when it writes its so-called "resolutions." It has no intention of enforcing non-compliance, and is, essentially, just a global circle-jerk, whose resolutions mean less than nothing.

It'd be one thing if they meant just "nothing" but they mean less than nothing, because if we don't enforce the resolution, if we don't dole out some of those serious consequences, then we give every other dictator the world over a blank check to blatantly defy the NEXT UN resolution.

Does that sound like a sound policy for the furtherance of world security and peace? If so, how, exactly?

Can you think of any other "serious consequences" for non-compliance of 1441 that do not involve putting troops on the ground in Iraq that have a) not already been tried, and b) stand some chance of being considered a "serious consequence"? If so, what are they?

-=Vel=-

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I have not seen the latest Blix report, but as of his previous one, his word was that the Iraqi government was not complying.

Maybe you should do it. Otherwise, some of us could get the impression you don't care to inform yourself about an issue where you claim to have well-founded opinion. Blix was never arguing that Iraq was in breach of1441 and this time explicitly criticized Powell and his "evidence".

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
In the first place, you didn't elect him, he was appointed by the Supreme Court.

I was going to comment on this, but, never mind. It's to stupid to bother.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
There is no proof for WOMD!

This is an often repeated lie so please allow my to despell this stupidity with a few facts. For the sack of debate here is a list of things Iraq has done which have violated UNSC resolution 1441 in which Iraq was ordered by the U.N. to show where its WoMD are or to provide evidience they were destroyed.

To date 25,000 liters of Anthrax are still unaccounted for as are numerous Scud missiles, their launchers, as well as nerve gas. Those aren't small things. Then there are the human intelligience reports from defectors, the intercepted cell phone calls were Iraqi military officers talk about hiding "nerve agents", the 15 sites which were cleaned up right before the U.N. arrived, the refusal to allow U2 inspection flights, the refusal to allow scientists to be questioned without Iraqi secret police present, the holding of scientists families hostage to make sure the scientists spout the party line, intercepted radio transmitions that Saddam had authorized the use of chemical and biological weapons in case of attack, that 6,500 chemical bombs and 550 chemical arty shells still remain unaccounted for, the human intell that right up to 2002 Saddam was trying to make a nuke or failing that a dirty bomb, and lastly you throw on top that there are a handful of terrorist cells opporating in the country and Saddam is deliberately not arresting them even though several countries have requested he do so.

The terrorist thing is a fringe issue and I don't know why Bush is making such a big deal about it. He should be harping about how we have satilitte photos of Iraqi Scud missiles and how there are multiple defectors who have spoken about Iraqi's on going chemical and biological weapons program.

[Velociryx]

I just did, Werna, and was going to post some comments about my findings, but Oerdin beat me to it.

No proof of WOMD? So what is 25,000 litres of Anthrax (and that is but one of many entries) unaccounted for?

If they're destroyed, where is the confirmation order for its destruction?

I'd say there's plenty of proof, but of course, nobody wants to get their hands dirty to fix the problem, so everybody turns a blind eye.

1441 was NEVER exclusively about WOMD. It was about compliance.

Is Iraq complying?

Not according to Blix. His last report mentioned *numerous* material breeches of 1441, including Missiles of longer than specified range, canisters for lobbing nerve gas agents, and a great many holes in his "inventory sheet" that supposedly provides a complete accounting.

In short, HE IS NOT COMPLYING!

That's hardly rocket science folks, and it begs the question (which still has not been answered by the peaceniks), what are serious consequences?

What can we do, short of troops on the ground, that has not already been tried, and demonstrably failed?

Name them.

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Maybe you should do it. Otherwise, some of us could get the impression you don't care to inform yourself about an issue where you claim to have well-founded opinion. Blix was never arguing that Iraq was in breach of1441 and this time explicitly criticized Powell and his "evidence".

He really didn't say things substantial one way or the other. He was weak, just like the UN.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Agathon
The credibility of the UN is being rescued by France, Russia and Germany who seem remember what the organisation was formed for (i.e. preventing wars). The credibility of the UN is being threatened by two rogue states that seem hell bent on a war for national gain no matter what the international consensus. The administration of one of these states is also hell bent on demolishing international treaties that don't suit it. France and Germany are not the problem here.

It's really people like who are killing the UN. Just going to war without the approval of the UN should do nothing to ruin the credibility of the UN. Nations were never meant to abandon their sovereignty to the UN. The more you guys beleive they were the weaker the UN becomes. That's why your statements are so laughable. Don't tread on me!

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Sorry Duncan, it was too tasty to jump on it. At any rate, I do not feel that the hostility was coming from France and Germany in the first place. Many reasons have been given in this thread on why a lot of people out in the world simply aren't convinced about the necessity of an Iraq war or aren't convinced that it will do any good to the future development.

Fine, don't attack Iraq. Step aside while the men take car of this boys. Just stop complaining and claiming that we need authorization from you. We don't and you really just look lame in all this.