And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 10:44:23 -0800 >From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Two articles on Iraq Attacks >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Dear Friends, > > Here are two articles on the illegality of the recent military attacks >against Iraq, entitled "U.S. Military Strike Against Iraq Undermines the >Rule of Law" and "Military Action Against Iraq Violates International Law." > >------------------------------------------------------- >MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW >by David Krieger* > >From the standpoint of international law, the military attacks by the >United States and Britain against Iraq are illegal and should be subject to >condemnation. No matter how one views Saddam Hussein and his lack of >compliance with United Nations Resolutions, his country should not be >subjected to military attack without specific authorization by the United >Nations Security Council. > >Absent a situation of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations >Charter, authority for the use of force to preserve the peace can only come >from the United Nations Security Council. Neither the United States nor >Britain sought this grant of authority from the Security Council, and it is >clear from statements made by other Security Council members that they >would not have attained this if they had asked. > >In announcing the attack on Iraq, President Clinton made reference to the >UN Security Council in stating, "The UN Security Council voted 15 to 0 to >condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into >compliance." In fact, in Security Council Resolution 1205 of November 5, >1998, the Security Council did condemn the decision by Iraq "to cease >cooperation with the Special Commission as a flagrant violation of >resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions." > >Resolution 1205 also demanded "that Iraq rescind immediately and >unconditionally the decision...to suspend cooperation with the Special >Commission...and that Iraq provide immediate, complete and unconditional >cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA." > >The Resolution did not, however, authorize the use of force against Iraq if >it did not comply to the satisfaction of the Special Commission or any >member of the Security Council. On the contrary, the Resolution decided >that the Security Council, in accord with its responsibility for >maintaining international peace and security, would "remain actively seized >of the matter." This means that the Security Council intended to retain >its authority over the issue of Iraq's compliance, and to determine the >actions to be taken to maintain peace and security in this matter. > >In announcing the attack against Iraq, President Clinton said that the >"mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons >programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." > >Tony Blair made an almost identical declaration, "Our objectives in this >military action are clear: To degrade his [Saddam Hussein's] capability to >build and use weapons of mass destruction. To diminish the military threat >he poses to his neighbors." > >Blair also said, "There is no realistic alternative to military force. We >are taking military action with real regret, but also with real >determination. We have exhausted all other avenues." > >By the logic of Clinton and Blair and their advisors, if members of the >United Nations are not satisfied with the manner in which other nations are >carrying out their responsibilities under Security Council resolutions or >otherwise under international law, military force is a viable and >reasonable course of action to "degrade" military capabilities. > >While Iraq's conduct both with regard to its neighbors and its own Kurdish >population may place it in a unique category, to be consistent one could >logically argue that India and Pakistan, for example, should be militarily >attacked for developing nuclear weapons capabilities. Or that Israel >should be militarily attacked for developing nuclear weapons capabilities. >What about North Korea? What about Japan, which has virtual nuclear >weapons capabilities? Should the United States, Britain, and France come >under military attack by disapproving nations for maintaining their >arsenals of weapons of mass destruction? Should Russia or China be subject >to such attack? > >More important, who is to decide who is to come under military attack and >when such attacks should be made? According to international law, such >decisions reside with the United Nations Security Council. These decisions >are not left in the hands of individual nations, no matter how powerful, >because to do so is to invite international anarchy and the unrestrained >use of force in the international system. Absent a situation of >self-defense, it is only the Security Council that can authorize the use of >force. > >Responding to the decision by the US and UK to attack Iraq, Russian >President Yeltsin said, "This can essentially be regarded as a step that >undermines the entire system of international security, of which the UN and >its Security Council are the linchpins." The Russian Duma voted 394 to one >that "[t]hese activities [the attack by the US and UK against Iraq] >constitute international terrorism." > >Clearly Russia did not share the enthusiasm of the US and UK for the resort >to military force against Iraq and the end run around the UN Security >Council. A Chinese foreign Ministry spokesman, Sun Yuxi, expressed a >similar sentiment, "This is a violation of the UN Charter and the >principles of international law, and we condemn this." In Pakistan, the >parliament unanimously condemned the airstrikes as "an attack on humanity >and the Islamic world." > >UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, referring to the initiation of the use of >force against Iraq, stated, "This is a sad day for the United Nations and >for the world." > >The use of force by the US in Iraq should also have been a sad day for the >United States. Unfortunately, it did not seem to be. There was broad >support in the Congress for the President's decision to initiate the >airstrikes against Iraq. > > The American people have been given vague and unspecific grounds for the >US military action. US media, for the most part, analyzes only the >military strategy and its immediate consequences, and makes virtually no >references to US or British violations of international law or to the >long-term consequences for the international system. > >During the impeachment hearings in Congress, which were going on while the >US and Britain conducted their military attacks against Iraq, there was >much talk about the rule of law and the belief that no one, not even the >president, is above the law. > >The American people and their Congressional representatives need to know >that it is also true that no leader, no matter how powerful, and no >country, no matter how strongly armed, is above international law. That >includes Augusto Pinochet and Henry Kissinger as well as Saddam Hussein, >Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. It includes the US and UK as well as Iraq. >Until we learn this lesson, force will be remain the predominant currency >of international relations and violence will continue to prevail. > > >___________ >*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a >non-governmental organization with consultative status to the United >Nations. He can be contacted at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 1187 >Coast Village Road, Suite 123, Santa Barbara, CA 93108, or by email at >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Further information on the issues raised in this >article can be found at www.wagingpeace.org. > > >------------------------------------------------------------ >U.S. MILITARY STRIKE AGAINST IRAQ UNDERMINES THE RULE OF LAW >by David Krieger* > >The legality of the military strike against Iraq does not hold up under >examination of the UN Security Council's resolution on Iraq's defiance of >the U.N. inspection team. President Clinton in his speech announcing the >attack, called attention to the 15-to-zero vote condemning Iraq in the >Security Council. He did not, however, reveal to the American people that >the resolution contained no authorization for the use of force against >Iraq. Nor did any previous Security Council resolution provide authority >for such attack. > >President Clinton claimed that the purpose of the military action was "to >attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and its military >capacity to threaten its neighbors." Clinton and his security advisors, who >he stated were unanimous in their recommendation to attack, were responding >to a report filed by Richard Butler, the head of the UN inspection team in >Iraq. > >But this is what the Washington Post wrote about Butler's report: >"Butler's conclusions were welcome in Washington, which helped orchestrate >the terms of the Australian diplomat's report. Sources in New York and >Washington said Clinton officials played a direct role in shaping Butler's >text during multiple conversations with him Monday at secure facilities in >the U.S. mission to the United Nations." > >The article in the Washington Post also pointed out that a "companion >report" by the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed "broad >satisfaction with Iraq's cooperation." > >What this suggests is that there were reasonable differences of opinion >about Iraq's cooperation with the UN, and that there may have been improper >collusion between Richard Butler, the head of the UN inspection team who is >supposed to act in a neutral manner, and U.S. officials. If this is true, >Butler was clearly acting in an improper manner and bears some of the >responsibility for the military action against Iraq. If it is true, Kofi >Annan should act immediately to fire Butler. > >President Clinton justified the attack as being necessary "to protect the >national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people >throughout the Middle East and around the world." This justification >raises many questions. What was the "national interest" that was being >protected? How was it determined? Should any country have the right to >attack another country in the name of national interest without proper >authority under international law? > >The behavior of President Clinton and his "security team" sends the wrong >message to the international community. It is a similar message to the one >they sent when they attacked a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, which they >unconvincingly claimed was a chemical weapons factory. > >The Russian Duma referred to our attack on Iraq in a nearly unanimous vote >as "international terrorism." This does not bode well for our future >relations with the Russians. > >The Pakistani Parliament unanimously characterized the military action >against Iraq as "an attack on humanity and the Islamic world." This does >not bode well for our future relations with other Islamic nations. > >Of the many consequences of our attack against Iraq, I believe the most >serious is our undermining of the rule of law. For any use of force >against Iraq, we should have had express authority from the UN Security >Council, which in all of its resolutions on this matter indicated clearly >that it would "remain actively seized of the matter." By choosing not to >do so, we once again demonstrated our willingness to defy international law >for vague reasons of national interest. > >The bottom line is that our attack against Iraq undermines international >law. It did not serve the interests of the United States, nor of the >world. Kofi Annan had it right when he said, "This is a sad day for the >United Nations and for the world." > >__________ >*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a >non-governmental organization with consultative status to the United >Nations. He can be contacted at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 1187 >Coast Village Road, Suite 123, Santa Barbara, CA 93108, or by email at >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Further information on the issues raised in this >article can be found at www.wagingpeace.org. > <<<<=-=-=FREE LEONARD PELTIER=-=-=>>>> If you think you are too small to make a difference; try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito.... African Proverb <<<<=-=http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ =-=>>>> IF it says: "PASS THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW...." Please Check it before you send it at: http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/blhoax.htm
