How can one be an apologist for chemical weapons one week, and not the next? Especially when we want to make a habit of pulling out statements from that very same time period to denounce the Iraqis. How can it be extremely important to denounce those statements then, but excuseable to not to denounce them when they were made?
Indeed, many of the exact same people were involved in the U.S. gov now as then. They should have denounced the use of those weapons then (and we certainly never should have sent them help on refining those weapons) just as they denounce them now. If their opinions have changed, then they should repudiate them, not beg off on “realpolitik” or even “that was a long time ago.”
Hey, Apos, didja read the thread? zigaretten goes to the trouble of finding three UN resolutions from the time period condemning the use of chemical weapons, and you persist in pretending that the US did not denounce their use.
They opposed one letter. Why is not explained. The link proffered by jjimm self-evidently provides an incorrect explanation, because it claims
when all three of the resolutions addressing chemical weapons addressed Iraq by name.
The most likely reason is because the Iran was also using chemical weapons, and wanted the letter to condemn both.
*This may sound like a nitpick, but technically, what I meant is sort of the opposite, to wit: the resolutions do not condemn either side for the use of chemical weapons, specifically. In other words, the language of the resolutions allows one to draw at least three different conclusions: 1) that Iraq has used chemical weapons, 2) that Iran has used chemical weapons, and/or 3) that both sides have used chemical weapons. It therefore does not lay the blame specifically on any party of the dispute.
Clearly, the resolution could have been formulated in the following language, for example: “deploring the use of chemical weapons on the part of Iraq’s military forces,” or “deploring the use of chemical weapons on the part of Iran’s military forces,” or “deploring the use of chemical weapons on the part of both parties in the conflict,” etc. I’m arguing that the language of the resolutions was left purposely ambiguous – in part, I suspect, as the result of a compromise among the various states negotiating its formulation and passage, and in part because the SC was not really sure who had done what, exactly, in 1986. The language would allow, for example, both countries to deny that they, specifically, had used such weapons, and blame the other.
In order to make my point clear, I would like to suggest the following thought experiment: imagine that, rather than exclusively condemning Iraq for its use of chemical weapons, the Secretary General’s letter had only condemned Iran for their use. If the SG had issued a letter condemning Iran’s use of such weapons, without mentioning Iraq, do you think the US would have actively voted against it? Must a letter condemning one state’s use of unlawful weapons, apparently based on the results of a special inquiry into the question, always be accompanied by condemnations of every state that uses those weapons?
I do see your point. But I think we’ve gone from an accusation that “the US refused to condemn Iraq” to an accusation of “diplomats sure do use funny language.” And I’ll agree with that. I’ll even go you one better (sort of) by pointing out that the letter “condemns” while the first couple of resolutions “deplore.” I know diplomats place a fair amount of importance on such things. But this is fodder for a different debate; one concerning the sort of secret back-room negotiations that are always involved in even the simplest of resolutions, and about which, I hasten to add, I know very little. On the issue at hand, I’m satisfied to note that the US did support resolutions which both named Iraq and condemned (or deplored) the use of chemical weapons.
And…if the UN had tried to issue a resolution which condemned only Iran I suspect that the US would have vetoed that too. Remember that the US attitude toward the Iran-Iraq war was that we didn’t want either side to win (which means we also didn’t want either side to lose). We supplied both sides with arms. I see the US action on the letter as an attempt to keep the UN neutral on this issue and not much more.
I didn’t get to read his post actually (having the window open all day to respond), and I apologize. zig’s got it right.
However, most of my post was in response to Lib’s driveby, which also seems uninformed by what zig pointed out and simply relagates the accusation to the dustbin on the grounds that its like accusing the government of ancient crimes.