Re: The "Lie"

On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:56:39PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> The Resolution - here even is the US government version
> (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm) - refers to "serious
> consequences", and says nothing whatsoever that I can find about "by any means
> necessary".

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2
August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)
and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq
as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring
international peace and security in the area.

[...]

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).

> And if you look at the serious consequences language it is within a context:
> 
>   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.

> Now three things stick out here.  First, there is the need to re-convene in case
> of a report showing non-compliance - if each individual member can declare war,
> why is that necessary?

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;

The UN *did* convene several times and while no agreement was reached, that
does not remove the explicitly recalled and acknowledged authorization given
to Member States from resolution 687. Let's forget the "serious
consequences" for a while (which I didn't bring up) and tell me whether "a
final opportunity" is single or plural.

To me it's single. Blix reported failure several times, including 2/14 and 3/7. 

Iraq lost its final chance and that's why no new resolution was necessary.
Not after the second report.

Yes, carefully crafted and carefully worded. But accepted as such.

Rob
-- 
Rob Kaper     | "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
[email protected] | temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
www.capsi.com | - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/FynbtppIl2G1SjcRAgbaAKCqqGvjAy5aKsJV0CZCntxBYY4XagCePNkG
0omQTSOXIBokp7Cd+5Kx1oI=
=mxSp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----