-Caveat Lector- As if we need UN permission, UN get out of US! - Bill WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! EXCLUSIVE: Security Council gives U.S. go-ahead Private assurances go beyond members' public stances Steven Edwards National Post UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations Security Council has given the green light to the United States to launch a "proportionate" military strike inside Afghanistan in retaliation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Sources inside the Security Council say the 15 member nations unanimously agreed that their Sept. 12 resolution condemning the attacks also endorsed an initial military response by the United States, and that Washington requires no further UN permission to act. This is contrary to the public stances of Security Council members France, China and Russia, which hold veto power in the council. Those countries' leaders have argued that the UN, not Washington, should lead the international fight against terrorism announced by George W. Bush, the U.S. President. The change has come about, say the sources, because Washington's approach to retaliation appears to be "measured" and "in the spirit" of the resolution. "Outside the Council, some states have made noises that the Americans ought to come back for further UN endorsement," said one high-level source on the Council. "Inside, no one is making those sorts of noises, including the Russians and the Chinese." A second Council member said: "Should they come come to us for permission to act militarily? Certainly not." "Should they inform us? It would be better if they want to build a coalition over the long term. My understanding is that all 15 of the Council's members are in agreement on this," the member said. The United States, as one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Council, is aware of the endorsement. The Council's fifth permanent member, Britain, has strongly endorsed the U.S. military plans. The sources emphasize that the Council has not given the United States a "blank cheque" for continued military action. The sources say the Council is encouraged that Washington is not talking about launching a widespread bombing campaign against Afghanistan, but appears to be limiting its initial military response to attacks on the country's ruling Taleban, as well as on Osama bin Laden, the terrorist described by the Taleban as their "guest." Beyond the initial strike, Washington is also calling for a broad and long fight against terrorism on several fronts, waged in part by enforcing anti-terrorism treaties at the UN, sharing intelligence and co-operating in trying to track money used to finance terrorists. "Washington hasn't been saying, 'Let's nuke Kabul,' " said the first source in reference to the Afghan capital. "They also recognize that just blasting a bomb into the desert isn't the answer either." The private position of the Council emerged yesterday as Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, called on the UN's 189 members to act against terrorism through the world body. "The organization ... alone can give the global legitimacy to the long-term struggle against terrorism," he told the General Assembly. The day after the terrorist attacks, the Security Council passed Resolution 1368, which described the acts as a "threat to international peace and security." That, say the Council sources, is now considered to be enough to allow the United States to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which speaks of the "inherent right ... of self defence if an armed attack occurs." "The Council is not likely to explicitly say that publicly," said the first source. "But that is the reality." Washington has been unwilling to ask the Council for specific approval to act militarily, fearing such a request would spark months of debate. *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
