khaosworks (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
khaosworks) wrote2003-02-06 06:30 am
khaosworks) wrote2003-02-06 06:30 am
Nice try, Colin (Part 2)
Okay, at the airport and jacked into the nice free ethernet ports at Changi Terminal 2. Now, where was I? Oh yeah.
While Powell didn't show anything that indicated that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, or any concrete evidence that he is developing programs that will lead so such biological, chemical or nuclear weaponry, he did show up a pretty convincing case that Iraq is hiding something and is purposefully blocking the inspection effort. That alone would place it in violation of 1441 (see para 4 of said Resolution). Iraq's rebuttal that it was lies, all lies, wasn't particularly convincing. Powell's argument about the aluminium tubes being steadily built up beyond specs was also pretty interesting, and basically on that score, Saddam's got a lot of 'splainin' to do.
Essentially, if this was a case where Iraq is being charged of being in possession of WMD, I wouldn't convict at all on the evidence presented. But I would definitely hold Iraq in contempt of the search warrant previously issued. If the UN had balls at all it would force Iraq at gunpoint to show all, but I don't think the UN has the authority nor the chutspe to do that. If hiding something was a guarantee of guilt, Iraq has pretty much had it.
What I do take issue with the US and Britain is, though, is the suggestion that the UN has to take aggressive action or is a body designed to enforce international edicts through force. I think that runs really counter to the UN Charter, the idea of which was to prevent wars in the first place and in that I think the Security Council, in proposing that the inspectors be allowed to do their job and be given the time they desire, has played its role well. Powell argues that the UN has to take action or risk irrelevance. I would say that to allow the US to unilaterally seize the role of world policeman would be indeed to reduce the UN to a mere functionary of US policy. Yes, 1441 has been violated - but the question is, what is the penalty? 1441 only specifies serious consequences. As Russia has suggested, maybe the serious consequence is another resolution. Although that sounds like an incredibly wimpy response, 1441 wasn't worded well to begin with if they wanted a military response as the "serious consequence". Maybe the next Resolution will be worded stronger with a stronger penalty clause.
So whither the War Party? The wisest move would be to let the inspections continue, and keep an open dialogue with Hans Blix and the IAEA, share intelligence with them and assist them in doing their jobs - and if what Powell says is correct, either they will turn up a smoking gun, or they'll come back and say, "We give up - they're hiding something but we don't know what." Then you can legitimately say, "Look, the inspectors are done, Iraq is hiding something, that's a violation of 1441, either give us the go signal now or word the next resolution to give us that authority if Iraq doesn't bend over."
Powell had a good case - not good enough to justify a conviction, but (if true - I still have my doubts about informers and the documentary evidence) enough to give the Security Council enough clout to say that Iraq is not being co-operative. It remains to be seen if the UN takes that and goes with it, and how far Bush & Co.'s patience can be stretched before they push the button.
In the meantime, if you want to bomb the fuck out of someone - come on. North Korea's gagging for it.
While Powell didn't show anything that indicated that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, or any concrete evidence that he is developing programs that will lead so such biological, chemical or nuclear weaponry, he did show up a pretty convincing case that Iraq is hiding something and is purposefully blocking the inspection effort. That alone would place it in violation of 1441 (see para 4 of said Resolution). Iraq's rebuttal that it was lies, all lies, wasn't particularly convincing. Powell's argument about the aluminium tubes being steadily built up beyond specs was also pretty interesting, and basically on that score, Saddam's got a lot of 'splainin' to do.
Essentially, if this was a case where Iraq is being charged of being in possession of WMD, I wouldn't convict at all on the evidence presented. But I would definitely hold Iraq in contempt of the search warrant previously issued. If the UN had balls at all it would force Iraq at gunpoint to show all, but I don't think the UN has the authority nor the chutspe to do that. If hiding something was a guarantee of guilt, Iraq has pretty much had it.
What I do take issue with the US and Britain is, though, is the suggestion that the UN has to take aggressive action or is a body designed to enforce international edicts through force. I think that runs really counter to the UN Charter, the idea of which was to prevent wars in the first place and in that I think the Security Council, in proposing that the inspectors be allowed to do their job and be given the time they desire, has played its role well. Powell argues that the UN has to take action or risk irrelevance. I would say that to allow the US to unilaterally seize the role of world policeman would be indeed to reduce the UN to a mere functionary of US policy. Yes, 1441 has been violated - but the question is, what is the penalty? 1441 only specifies serious consequences. As Russia has suggested, maybe the serious consequence is another resolution. Although that sounds like an incredibly wimpy response, 1441 wasn't worded well to begin with if they wanted a military response as the "serious consequence". Maybe the next Resolution will be worded stronger with a stronger penalty clause.
So whither the War Party? The wisest move would be to let the inspections continue, and keep an open dialogue with Hans Blix and the IAEA, share intelligence with them and assist them in doing their jobs - and if what Powell says is correct, either they will turn up a smoking gun, or they'll come back and say, "We give up - they're hiding something but we don't know what." Then you can legitimately say, "Look, the inspectors are done, Iraq is hiding something, that's a violation of 1441, either give us the go signal now or word the next resolution to give us that authority if Iraq doesn't bend over."
Powell had a good case - not good enough to justify a conviction, but (if true - I still have my doubts about informers and the documentary evidence) enough to give the Security Council enough clout to say that Iraq is not being co-operative. It remains to be seen if the UN takes that and goes with it, and how far Bush & Co.'s patience can be stretched before they push the button.
In the meantime, if you want to bomb the fuck out of someone - come on. North Korea's gagging for it.
no subject
I say that just to highlight that the evidence presented can be (mis)read according to one's political motives. Personally, I have no doubt whatsoever that Saddam is hiding stuff and is gonna get hit hard when (if) he gets caught cheating.
I'm still uncomfortable with pre-emption as a principle in international law, because it is so open to abuse ("Nation A looked at our nation funny, so we're gonna attack them before they attacked us!"), but I'd feel safer in a Saddam-less world.
no subject
no subject