![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feb. 6th, 2003
Nice try, Colin.
Feb. 6th, 2003 04:58 amSo a few hours ago, like everyone else (well, you should have been watching, anyway - take a little interest in the world around you, won'tcha?) I was watching Colin Powell give his impassioned plea to the UN Security Council. Impressive as it was, sadly, it was nearly all circumstantial and based on informants rather than hard evidence - and truth to tell, from the really quick way China had a reply all planned, the members of the Security Council had pretty much made up their minds and their positions from the get-go, so Powell could have saved his breath as far as convincing that lot went. The outcome was obvious - the inspections would go forward and be given more time. The question is, now, will Bush & Co. go ahead without UN sanction?
A more immediate question though, I suppose, is how convincing Powell's presentation would be to the viewer. I mean, this is as much as the US is prepared to show its hand on, so I pretty much guess they've shot their bolt. If this was the case for the Prosecution, how would it fare?
To be continued when I get to the airport and go on-line from there. (Ooo! Suspense!)
A more immediate question though, I suppose, is how convincing Powell's presentation would be to the viewer. I mean, this is as much as the US is prepared to show its hand on, so I pretty much guess they've shot their bolt. If this was the case for the Prosecution, how would it fare?
To be continued when I get to the airport and go on-line from there. (Ooo! Suspense!)
Nice try, Colin (Part 2)
Feb. 6th, 2003 06:30 amOkay, 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.