Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
poebassman said:Obviously if you had read the U.N. resolution 1441, you'd notice that it recalled all previous resolutions with its violations. The U.N. gave Iraq a new deadline and qualifications for compliance. Kofi Anan agreed he met those qualifications.
jimnyc said:Huh?
"Recalling" prior resolutions DOES NOT mean that they are null and void. By stating such in a new resolution you are basically stating "incorporating herewith", meaning that this further resolution is an extension of prior resolutions.
They were in breach of said resolutions. Creating a new resolution in no way invalidates prior agreements or breach of them.
wade said:What it does do is establish new criteria to be met, and dissolves old criteria. Otherwise it can become impossible to meet criteria, since they may overlap or even conflict with each other.
Wade.
jimnyc said:Establish new criteria yes, absolve old resolutions NO. There were quite a few things not mentioned in each subsequent resolution, do you think that means those items were just discarded and no longer set to the demand of the UN? Absolutely not. They were basically just added onto pre-existing resolutions. The other poster made it out as if the old resolutions were withdrawn by drawing up additional resolutions. In every negotiation that involves resolutions there will ultimately be multiple resolutions. The term "recalling" will then be quite common, and it doesn't mean it's being rescinded.
wade said:Here is the resolution: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
It lays out which parts of earlier resolutions are to be enforced, and lays out several new criteria that replace terms of earlier resolutions.
However, it is clear that it states that if these terms are met, the obligation is satisfied. Punishment for failure to have met the earlier resolutions at the times specified in those resolutions would not be forthcomming.
Wade.
Sir Evil said:by Richard O. Spertzel
NEW YORK POST
October 6, 2003
AGAIN we hear the cries of "no smoking gun." David Kay's report to Congress is decried variously as a full glass or an empty glass. It seem no one can accept that this is an interim report, and indeed the glass is half full.
Kay says his group has found considerable evidence that Iraq had ongoing, prohibited biological and missile programs, although to date no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been found. He further reports of innumerable items and sites that should have been declared by Iraq to U.N. Monitoring and Verification Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and probably earlier to U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). Not declaring directly violated Security Council Resolution1441.
Those of us experienced in dealing with Iraq over its weapons are not surprised that no "smoking gun" - e.g., munitions filled with chemical or biological agents - has been found. I've stated many times that if Iraq didn't use these weapons, they'd be difficult to find.
Iraq didn't use them. Rolf Ekeus, former UNSCOM executive chairman, explained why in an oped earlier this summer: Iraq had told him and others in UNSCOM that it realized chemical and biological weapons could do little against a rapidly advancing enemy.
FINDING WMD-loaded munitions would require Iraqi individuals with knowledge of their storage sites to give that information to the Coalition forces. To date, this has not occurred. Yes, several scientists have talked to the press - but they've related less than what Iraq had already declared or acknowledged to UNSCOM. Many of the accounts seemed to be more akin to those of 1995 and early '96, rather than those of 1997 and '98.
poebassman said:Did you actually post the interim report vs the final report of David Kay. You know that the final report supercedes the interim report, right?
David Kay did say there were violations to 1441. An interview with the Guardian:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1160665,00.html
As for the war itself, Kay still believes it was justified - not by the Iraqi military threat, which was largely illusory - but by the suffering of the Iraqi people. It will probably be the justification that Washington and London will ultimately settle on. "You spend any time there and you look at the mass graves and the destruction of society and the culture," Kay says. "We have a history of usually ending up on the right side of wars for the wrong reason."
As for Violations, Inspectors must report the violations to the council where as the council will decide what actions must be taken next. Actions might be to destroy any weapons that violate 1441. Violations are not the end all to start a war. Compliance is subjective and as long as the inspectors are in Iraq they are in at least partial compliance.
This document lists possible violations in March 2003 just days before the war but the inspectors were still there destroying what they found.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/UNMOVIC UDI Working Document 6 March 03.pdf
With the inspectors, we had accountability.
The text of 1441 outlining compliance.
Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,
Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA ;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
The bolded area gives the path to follow if Iraq is not in compliance. A report is to be given to the Secretary General of the violations and directs it to the Council for review where as the Council would most likely insist on compliance or "serious consequences would be taken". Iraq had done this many times and it had capitulated every time allowing the inspections to continue and allowing the weapons to be destroyed.
It never said a member could form a coalition and attack Iraq.
Sir Evil said:How many resolutions does it take one to realize that they are not effective? how many years must go by before one realizes that time is working against us?
13 years of defiance and truly non effective resolutions should be enough! diplomacy was not working here any longer, how much slack needs to be given?
jimnyc said:Hell, it even clearly states that Iraq remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraqs failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
I think this proves my point. Prior resolutions remained in effect and were expected to be honored. They are not withdrawn as the other poster would have us believe, which was my point.
wade said:But now the evidence is that Saddam did comply with 1441. If this is true, the earlier failures to comply are meaningless.
wade said:But now the evidence is that Saddam did comply with 1441. If this is true, the earlier failures to comply are meaningless.
wade said:I agree they were not fully withdrawn. Some were, and were replaced with newer resolutions which replaced them. But the point remains, complance with 1441 was supposed to be sufficienent to satisfy the UN, and it appears that this was done. The fact that earlier resolutions had been viololated was no longer a punishable issue.
Wade.
dilloduck said:You continue to attempt to prove that the war is illegal in the eyes of the UN and miss the point that Bush basically said that we don't care. We are going in anyway. The question remains---is the U.S. going to allow the UN to determine how we protect ourselves? Bush stance is a firm NO while Kerry still wants permission from the global community to act. I would rather be alive than legal.
jimnyc said:Huh?
"Recalling" prior resolutions DOES NOT mean that they are null and void. By stating such in a new resolution you are basically stating "incorporating herewith", meaning that this further resolution is an extension of prior resolutions.
They were in breach of said resolutions. Creating a new resolution in no way invalidates prior agreements or breach of them.
poebassman said:You are correct. The previous resolutions aren't null and void and they are the basis for resolution 1441. I misspoke when I added "and it's violations". I didn't proof read that part well. The violations still existed but the compliance is based on the current resolution as it states in Operational Paragraph 12. Any further violations will be referred to the Secretary General and the Security Council.
dilloduck said:Exactly what is it that you don't get here? Bush decided that since the UN was content to let Saddam remain in power that the US would have to take him out WITHOUT UN approval. That's what we did with help from a few countries that weren't getting rich off the oil-for -food program.
poebassman said:Exactly... Bush decided... well maybe... I think it was Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that actually decided then they convinced Bush.
The U.K. Embassador Greenstock and his explanation of vote on 1441.
A key part of the Resolution we have adopted today is the provisions giving inspectors the penetrating strength needed to ensure the successful disarmament of Iraq. I am glad that the Council has recognised that we could not afford a return to the ambiguous modalities and Memoranda of Understanding of the past; that we could not afford exceptions to unconditional, unrestricted, and immediate access; that we could not afford to have inspectors again standing by helplessly while crucial documents are burnt or while convoys leave from the back doors as inspectors arrive in the front; and that we could not afford interviews compromised by intimidating minders. The provisions we have agreed, including making legally binding the practical arrangements set out by the inspectors themselves, will significantly strengthen the hand of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. This will reinforce international confidence in the inspectors. It will also, I hope, lead Iraq away from a fatal decision to conceal weapons of mass destruction (MWD). If Iraq is genuinely committed to full WMD disarmament, it can ensure inspections get off to a flying start by providing the complete and accurate declaration required under Operational Paragraph 3. The UK has full confidence in Dr Blix and Dr El-Baradei and their teams, and full respect for their integrity and independence, as they embark on a crucial and difficult task.
We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.
Ultimately, Mr President, the choice lies with Iraq as to whether to take the peaceful route to disarmament. The UK hopes that Iraq will fully co-operate with the United Nations, meet its obligations, and take the path back to the lifting of sanctions laid out in Resolutions 1284 and 687. The disarmament of Iraq in the area of WMD by peaceful means remains the UK's firm preference. But if Iraq chooses defiance and concealment, rejecting the final opportunity it has been given by the Council in Operational Paragraph 2, the UK together, we trust, with other Members of the Security Council will ensure that the task of disarmament required by the Resolutions is completed.
But the U.S. Embassador said:
As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no hidden triggers and no automaticity with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The Resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And one way or another, Mr. President, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.
Bush said in the debate last night that we followed all diplomatic means yet the inspectors were still there until bush gave the deadline.
Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
dilloduck said:You still don't get it---Bush supporters DON'T CARE if the US acted against the UN charter or not!
wade said:Oh, that is all to clear. They also don't care if Bush decieved the American public concerning the reasons for going to war.
