Once again Saddam is at it. After Iraq stated that they would allow unconditional access to weapons inspectors from the UN Iraq is now saying that they will not accept any new conditions from the UN.
In other words Saddam will allow unconditional access to UN weapons inspectors only if Saddam agrees with the conditions. (Las Vegas Review Journal, page 3A, Sept 22, 2002. Sorry, I can’t find an online cite)
In another thread that I cannot find anymore, I think it was lost the other day, I bet that it would take Iraq 12 to 18 months to back down on their “promise”. Holy schoinkies Batman, I was way off.
To those who think Saddam isn’t-shouldn’t be attacked for having WMD I have this question: why is Iraq and Saddam doing everything they can to make sure weapons inspections do not take place?
It is a well known fact that Saddam has used gas on his own people. It is also well known that he has disregarded all the UN resolutions.
Why is it that assuming Iraq has countinued to develope WMD is only a pretext for Bush to attack? Saddam has been there and done that and there is no reason to think he will stop.
This was a statement issued on Saturday, too–is somebody somewhere (like, say, Rula Amin?) just interpreting this to mean that Iraq is imposing conditions after all? So maybe there isn’t another statement somewhere saying, “Iraq imposes conditions after all”?
Because I don’t see that it says that.
In which case the OP has its panties in a bunch for nothing?
The Iraqi government does not believe that the inspections will be carried out in good faith.
Anyway, the Bush administration is not interested in inspections either – since they interfere with its war plans – and will also do what it can to stop them. One way to accomplish this is by making essentially unreasonable demands on the Iraqi government, and then, when it rejects them, using that rejection as a pretext to launch a military assault.
Yes, using gas on one’s own people is most definitely a crime against humanity. Golly, I wonder why we didn’t protest or invade when he did it in the first place?
Oh, yeah, I forgot – that was back when he was our ally. Silly me!
And as far as disregarding UN resolutions go, well, the US government has a long and illustrious history of that sort of thing itself. I don’t suppose you advocate bombing Washington because of its refusal to abide by UN resolutions, do you?
Well, you’re right that Saddam’s a thug and a threat to anyone he can reach. But the same can be said of many other regimes. I don’t buy the argument that our only option, therefore, is to bomb him. Personally, I think we probably should have supported the indigenous revolution that had begun after the Gulf War; but we decided to play a game of geopolitics and betray it instead.
If we really are interested in a democratic ”regime change” in Iraq, then we should support the many indigenous democratic movements in the country that oppose him.
Methinks you don’t understand the workings of the United Nations. UN General Assembly resolutions - the type the US has on occasion disregarded - are non-binding under international law.
Security council resolutions - the type Iraq has disregarded - are binding under international law. The US has never disregarded a Security Council resolution.
So, the US has ignored advice given by the General Assembly. Iraq has violated international law. See the difference?
Saddam has been violating not only Security Council resolutions, but also his own commitments made in 1991. His waffling on his current “offer” makes it all the more clear that his promises are worthless. the US and the UN must deal with Iraq in a way that takes into account this reality.
I’ve never understood this argument. Because the U.S. did not act properly back in 1988, we are estopped from acting properly now? Boiled down, your argument is “two wrongs make a right.” As any kindergartener can tell you, that argument is incorrect.
The US government also regularly violates its own commitments, when it serves its purposes. Note, for example, the decision of the US government to break its ABM Treaty with Russia, without even a pretense to continued negotiations over the issue. And as far as the UN goes, the US government has virtually no concern whatsoever for UN resolutions, so why should it expect other countries to abide by them? I hope that you are willing to judge this country’s political leadership with the same stringency that you judge others’.
Sua:
*No. The point was to US government hypocrisy in this issue, highlighted hopefully as means of instilling in my debating opponents some distance from the rhetoric of the current administration.
As I wrote before, I think that the ”proper action” is to support indigenous revolutionary and democratic movements within the Iraq. It is conceivable that the proper response is a multilateral military action, but I’ll wait for a UN resolution before I decide on that one. The improper action, as I see it now, is for the US military to launch an attack unilaterally, without the support of an international coalition, against an impoverished, backward, virtually defenseless 3rd world country, under the pretext that it somehow constitutes a direct threat to the US mainland.
However, I predict that that is exactly what will happen. Attrayant:
Do you know what the words ”good faith” mean? In this context, for example, they imply that the inspectors are, in fact, inspecting, rather than gathering intelligence for a demonstrably hostile foreign government (in this case, the US), or being manipulated for political purposes.
I’m not sure I understand the last part of your question. Fundamentally, all of us are in a position to demand that the inspection should be undertaken in good faith, and should do so.
If you mean that the Iraqis are no better than we are when it comes to the manipulation of inspections for political ends, I’m inclined to agree.
There’s quite a difference between formally ending a treaty after followiong it for 30 years vs. ignoring a commitment and lying about it. In addition, even if the US were an unreliable negotiating parner, that wouldn’t make Iraq any more reliable.
First of all, the US has never violated a Security Council resolution. Secondly, it doesn’t matter whether the US is also at fault or is getting what it deserves. The fact is, Saddam is building an arsenal of WMDs and his discussion of it is completely unreliable.
This is not exactly a moral question. It’s more a practical question. Iraq constitututes a grave danger to its neighbors and to the world. What should be done?
Your point about alleged US government hypocrisy is both wrong and irrelevant.
That has been our policy since Bush 41 implemented it in 1991. It hasn’t worked. Due to the growth of Saddam’s arsenal and the example of 9/11, it’s clear that we cannot afford to stick with an ineffective strategy.
I think it’s better to act when they’re still (relatively) defenseless. That’s what we ought to have done with Germany in 1933. If we wait until Saddam has the bomb and then attack, Tel Aviv, London, or San Francisco might be destroyed.
The US sits as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, does it not?
As a permanent member, it has the right to veto proposed Security Council measures, yes?
Gee, wouldn’t it be kinda stupid for the US to rule against its own actions in advance, or condemn them afterwards, as a sitting member of the Security Council? Just asking.
Yes, anyway, are you willing to agree that violation of UN security council resolutions is a valid pretense for, let us say, a military action – an invasion, or a bombing?
Umm… no. The ABM treaty had a clause that allowed us (or the USSR) to exit out of it, provided we gave a 6 month notice. We did that. Ending a treaty and breaking it are very different things. (As an aside, I’ll point out that the world hasn’t ended since then, and I don’t really see a new arms race brewing, but that’s another thread.)
First of all, is it hypocritical? Well, yes and no. While the US, as a nation, once regarded Iraq as an ally of sorts, and now wants it disarmed, the people running the country now are not the same as the people running it then. That being said, even if it is hypocritical, so what? As has been pointed out, hypocracy doesn’t make the current arguments (or “rhetoric”, if you prefer)less valid, and I see no reason to “distance” ourselves from them.
Well, to be blunt, Saddam should’ve considered that before he started being an International Prick. If I commit a crime, and I serve prison time and then get out on parole, how do I know the conditions of my parole will be fair? I don’t. I hope they will be, but technically I’m still serving part of my sentence, so I’m pretty much at the mercy of the court. My best bet is to comply, and convince the court that I’m ready to be a good, law-abiding citizen, at which point they’ll leave me alone. Same with Saddam.
Jeff
Yes, yes, and yes. What’s your point? My point is that the US has not violated binding UN resolutions.
If the terms of the UN Security Council resolution is obey or be attacked, then yes, it is a valid causus belli (“pretense” is the wrong word) under international law, as international law is accepted by all member nations of the UN. Either you accept that as a valid causus belli, or deny the concept of international law.
In the case of Iraq, the UN Security Council authorized the use of force against Iraq. The Security Council then authorized a cease fire - so long as Iraq met its obligations under the cease fire, the authorization to attack Iraq was suspended.
Iraq hasn’t met its obligations under the cease fire.
How, exactly, did this represent he US “violating its own commitments”? The ABM treaty had provisions that allowed either party to exit from its requirements upon notice to the other party. By conforming to those notice provisions, the US was honoring its commitments, not violating them.
**It’s still a stupid argument. During WWII, the U.S. was allied with Stalin. Does that mean all later opposition to Soviet expansion and Communist human rights violations indicate “hypocrisy” on the part of the U.S.?
december: This will have to be a quick response. I’ll address as many of your points as I can get to.
After reading other responses regarding the ABM Treaty, I with draw it as an example of US bad faith, and admit I’m in error on that point. It’s a poor example. Regarding this:
*The US gov’t is an unreliable negotiating partner, but my real point is that it is hypocritical of the US government to use Iraqi infractions as a pretense for war, when it simultaneously reserves for itself the moral right to infract any rule it sees fit. In other words, it is my accusation that the US government operates according to the principle of privilege – that is to say, private law. It does not feel that the standard rules of international law apply in its case, and flaunts them at will. It is therefore in no position to point the finger when other states do the same (which, of course, Iraq undoubtedly does).
Regarding the argument concerning UN security resolution, see my response to Sua, above. As an ardent defender of Israel, you are no doubt aware that the Israeli government is in currently in violation of a number of UN Security Council resolutions; in addition, it has a robust nuclear weapons program, with over 100 nuclear warheads (estimated). It is one of four countries on earth that has refused to ratify the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is generally acknowledged that the Israeli weapons programs are a primary incitement for other countries in the region to develop their own nuclear arsenals. In other words, many of the accusations currently leveled at the Iraq regime can also be leveled at Israel. So why does it seem so patently absurd to invade Israel, and such a moral imperative to invade Iraq?
Would you mind supporting that claim with some sort of argument, so that I can figure out where we don’t see eye-to-eye?
Regarding our policy since Bush 41 (what does the 41 mean?), it seems that one of us has missed something. I thought our policy was inspections, no-flight zones, and economic sanctions. On what do you base your assertion that we’ve support democratic movements in Iraq?
The thing that gets me about GW’s actions is the apparent headlong rush to start shooting at somebody. That and the seeming disregard for the need to have others with us, particularly the Arab states.
For example, afterBush’s UN speech Hussein made a proposal for “unconditional inspections.” Why not grab that ball and run with it? Have the UN immediately respond with something like, “Our inspection organizing team will be in Bagdad Monday at 0900, your time. Where can be meet you to arrange the details?” Instead, the response was to the effect that based on past performance he doesn’t mean it. But people can change if they see the handwriting on the wall. After all, going only by past performance, GW is a perpetual sophmore who likes to drink and party and get by on his father’s money.
Our flat rejection gave Hussein an out that he shouldn’t have had. Now GW follows up with a demand for a new UN resolution. If you read UN speech in the cite above, you will find a passing reference in the form of, “My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge.” The rest of the speech dwelt on enforcing existing UN resolutions.
It is clear from the words of GW, Rumsfeld, et al (Richard Perle for example) that the real purpose isn’t enforcement of the UN resolutions but is the removal of Hussein, with no blueprint for what happens next. The impression I get is that if Hussein is removed we will all live happily ever after in the castle on the hill.
GW seems to be intolerant of any opinion but his own. He seems determined to embark on a unilateral, preemtive war based, as far as far as I can determine, on intelligence sources that have been demonstrated as unreliable in the past, speaking of the historical record which is cited so often with respect to Hussein.
It isn’t only foreign leaders who are reluctant. The story of the recent German election seems to be that Schroeder was in trouble so he started criticising the prospective US Iraq adventure. That, so the analysis goes, resonated with the German population and pulled his chestnuts out of the fire. The fathers and grandfathers of today’s Germans found out what war is really like on the Russian front, and the lesson seems to have stayed with them. GW hasn’t had an opportunity to learn that lesson.
I have trouble believing that the US public is so blind that they think that GW Bush is the only world leader who is aware of the problem of Hussein and his solution is not only correct but the only one worth considering.
And the only evidence you gave to prove this statement was proven wrong. Stamping your foot and italicizing words doesn’t make them true
So you didn’t read all the posts pointing out the difference? Let’s try again. The US has never disregarded a legally binding resolution. Iraq IS disregarding a legally binding resolution that was a condition of the cease-fire agreement signed after the Gulf War. So basically unless you can provide concrete evidence in the form of reliable cites and examples, you need to stop saying that the US is holding Iraq to a different standard.
I just addressed this in the lines above. But I’ll say it again. You want to accuse? Bring cites and evidence. Otherwise, hush.
Yay! Finally an accusation with some merit. I’ll get back to it later.
Unfortunately, not ratifying the NPT is not a crime under international law. Therefore, Israel is breaking no treaties nor any laws. Iraq, I believe, HAS signed the treaty and is therefore breaking a treaty AND violating its cease-fire agreement. So Iraq is still worse
Of course, since it was the French that provided the nuclear assistance to Israel, they might have broken some treaties. But we’ll let that go for now as the French are not germane to this discussion, as usual.
**
Generally acknowledged by who? You have a reliable cite? Not yet? OK, I’ll wait.
By the way, are you seriously saying that no Arab states would be pursuing a nuclear program if it wasn’t for the fact that Israel has them?
Can you really not see the difference in situations between Israel and Iraq? Seriously? OK, let’s try once more.
While they both are in violation of Security Council resolution and are both in violation of international law, the resolution that was passed referring to the Israel situation was not a part of a cease-fire negotiated with the Security Council. In other words, if after the '67 war, the Security Council attacked and defeated Israel and as a condition of the cease-fire agreement, Israel agreed to leave the West Bank, then reneged on it, then the cease-fire would be invalidated and hostilities would resume. Just as in the Iraq case.
Well, unfortunately for your argument, that ISN’T what happened. The Security Council resolutions in the case of Israel were not conditions of a cease fire. There has never been an authorization to use force against Israel, while there is one to use force against Iraq. See the difference yet? Probably not.
Bush 41 refers to the first Bush, who was the 41st president.
And have the inspections, no-flight zones and economic sanctions worked? No. In fact, they haven’t. The inspectors were tossed out of Iraq in violation of its obligations under the cease fire. Economic sanctions are clearly flawed in just about every way conceivable. In fact, our “allies” are even pushing to have these removed. Yeah, that’ll show Hussein. Just hold out long enough and the UN will wimp out. Sorry. Force should have been authorized in 1998, unfortunately, a certain political party in the US practically made it impossible for the president to act during that time, although I doubt he would have done anything but ineffectively toss a few cruise missiles into the vicinity.
One of us HAS missed something here. I just don’t think it’s who you think it is.
Quite a fine point of international law, Neurotik, of which I was quite unaware. The "cease fire"aspect certainly changes everything, doesn’t it. Why, that very fact alone is sufficient, under international law, to alter the entire legal landscape.
Israel is in violation of int. law, but no cease fire is involved, therefore a stern talking to is the extent of sanctions. Iraq, however, is in violation of int. law, and a cease fire is involved, hence, immediate war.
Precisely which section of International Law covers this? Whats the precedent here, Guatemala vs. Nicaragua, et.al
