Monday, August 25, 2003
Preventative War Red Herring
Contrary to what many people seem to believe, the Iraq War was not the first of many preventative wars that neo-cons in Washington are set to embark on. The events of the last few months have proven once and for all that depending on what side of the ideological fence one sits, the idea of Washington embarking on a series of preventive wars is either a wet dream, or paranoid delusion. Once more, the fact of the matter was that the Iraq war was not a preventative war at all. The 1991 cease-fire agreement “between the Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait” was still in affect and thus the US and Britain where technically at war with Iraq already.
The issues at hand were, in reality, as follows. One, if some of the member nations determined that Iraq had violated the terms of 1991 cease-fire, did those nations have the legal authority to enforce those resolutions by themselves, or was the agreement of the security council needed for such an action? Two, what lengths could a party go to reinforce the relevant resolutions. France et al argued that only the Security Council as a whole had the right to decide whether Iraq had met its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and that only the Security Council as a whole had the right to act and to decide what was needed to enforce various UN resolutions. The US et al disagreed on both counts.
Disagreements of this kind predated the buildup to the current crisis. The biggest bone of contention was what to make of paragraphs 21 and 22 of UN resolution 687. Whereas, the French and Russians focused on paragraph 22 which seems to allow the lifting of sanctions once Iraq has rid itself of its WMD weapons and programs, the US and British focused on paragraph 21, which required the Iraqis to comply with “all relevant UN resolutions”, including, the US and Britain argued, UN resolution 688. The impetus for the creation of Iraqi Kurdistan and the two no fly zones, 688 condemned “the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq.” Where this relates back to the matter at hand is that all sides tacitly allowed Britain and the US to enforce an interpretation of the cease-fire that not everyone agreed was correct. This led support to the US and British contention that they were free to act unilaterally back in March.
Ironically, the Bush administration had been very reluctant to pass 688 in the first place, but was pressured into it by the weight of public opinion.
Contrary to what many people seem to believe, the Iraq War was not the first of many preventative wars that neo-cons in Washington are set to embark on. The events of the last few months have proven once and for all that depending on what side of the ideological fence one sits, the idea of Washington embarking on a series of preventive wars is either a wet dream, or paranoid delusion. Once more, the fact of the matter was that the Iraq war was not a preventative war at all. The 1991 cease-fire agreement “between the Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait” was still in affect and thus the US and Britain where technically at war with Iraq already.
The issues at hand were, in reality, as follows. One, if some of the member nations determined that Iraq had violated the terms of 1991 cease-fire, did those nations have the legal authority to enforce those resolutions by themselves, or was the agreement of the security council needed for such an action? Two, what lengths could a party go to reinforce the relevant resolutions. France et al argued that only the Security Council as a whole had the right to decide whether Iraq had met its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and that only the Security Council as a whole had the right to act and to decide what was needed to enforce various UN resolutions. The US et al disagreed on both counts.
Disagreements of this kind predated the buildup to the current crisis. The biggest bone of contention was what to make of paragraphs 21 and 22 of UN resolution 687. Whereas, the French and Russians focused on paragraph 22 which seems to allow the lifting of sanctions once Iraq has rid itself of its WMD weapons and programs, the US and British focused on paragraph 21, which required the Iraqis to comply with “all relevant UN resolutions”, including, the US and Britain argued, UN resolution 688. The impetus for the creation of Iraqi Kurdistan and the two no fly zones, 688 condemned “the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq.” Where this relates back to the matter at hand is that all sides tacitly allowed Britain and the US to enforce an interpretation of the cease-fire that not everyone agreed was correct. This led support to the US and British contention that they were free to act unilaterally back in March.
Ironically, the Bush administration had been very reluctant to pass 688 in the first place, but was pressured into it by the weight of public opinion.
Comments:
Post a Comment
