Business
Philosophy
Current Events |
Writing
Current Events: UN/Iraq Resolutions
[2003-03-24]
Summary:
I keep hearing complaints that the current actions are somehow "illegal". Assuming those who make this complaint are using UN resolutions as the standard for legality:
The rest is simple logic.
Main Course:
Putting aside for the moment the question of the validity of international law, those who claim to have instituted such a system of laws have clearly documented the "legality" of the current operations in Iraq in several handfuls of resolutions. Don't be put off by reading these. With few exceptions, they're not written in tricky legalese. They're easy short reads. Pay particular attention to the language of resolution 678:
Resolution 660
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-12-17UNResolution660.asp
This is the first one, condemning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, demanding withdrawal, and (typically) "threatening" to meet again to discuss further steps. No teeth in this resolution alone. But for the UN, that's par for the course.
Resolution 661
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2003-01-28UNResolution661.asp
- declares Iraq to have ignored resolution 660,
- and more importantly establishes an embargo against Iraq,
- asserts that the UN will prevent the transfer of value from Kuwait to Iraq,
- and, of course, threatens more meetings.
If France, Germany, Russia, and China (and any others) have supplied Iraq, it may be in direct violation of this resolution.
Resolution 662
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/20030213UNRes662.asp
This one wraps up some paperwork, nullifying the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq, threatens more meetings.
Resolutions 664-667, 669, 670, 674, 677
These are surely relevant. But I couldn't find their texts. At any rate, it took the Council a loooong time to get around to ...
Resolution 678
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/20030220UNRes678.asp
This resolution, in combination principally with 1441 is the one under which the coalition is operating today. Resolution 678:
- establishes a deadline to get out of Kuwait
- and authorizes "all necessary means" "to uphold and implement resolution 660" (i.e. oust Iraq) — and — "all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area" (emphasis mine).
By virtue of the language "all subsequent relevant resolutions" it cannot expire until the Iraqi government stops inspiring further relevant resolutions! Regime change is, of course, certain to be effective in this regard. So the use of decisive force has never been taken off the table.
(And yes, not to be outdone, it calls for more meetings.)
Resolution 686
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/20030220UNRes686.asp
This one is the first resolution following Iraq's ouster from Kuwait. Notice that it "[takes] note of the suspension of offensive combat operations by [coalition] forces". It doesn't say the affair is over. It says it's suspended. Notice also that "Affirms that all twelve resolutions noted above continue to have full force and effect". This includes resolution 678. The main purpose of this resolution is to tell Iraq to "sit down, shut up, and clean up that mess, and tell us when you're done". Calls for more meetings.
Resolution 687
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-15UNResolution687.asp
It's fitting that as the soldiers leave the stage and the bureaucrats enter, the language becomes more byzantine (windy). This one:
- establishes the inspections program that we watched drag on for years (those of us actually watching, anyway).
- places full responsibility upon Iraq to go cold turkey with respect to WMD.
- Iraq is compelled to "unconditionally accept the destruction" of its weapons of mass destruction.
This was twelve years ago. They never have. And, as we'll see, resolution 1441 says that this is still the issue.
- This resolution also stops Iraq's effort to welch on its international debts (something for which Russia, France, Germany and China must have been very glad), letting them use oil export revenues for limited purposes.
And it extends the arms embargo of resolution 661.
- Lastly, pay close attention to paragraph H 32, which compels Iraq to forbid any terrorist organization from operating within its borders.
- (Yep, more meetings are called for.)
Resolutions 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284, 1382
These are also surely relevant. But again, I couldn't find their texts. And once again, it took the Council a much longer time to get around to ...
Resolution 1441
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp
- "deplores" Iraq's flouting of the previous resolutions (yes, going back over 12+ years),
- specifically recalls that resolution 678 authorizes all necessary means to implement all relevant resolutions since resolution 660 (! So this means the Security Council members did know what they were signing, and what it meant, exactly as Colin Powell says!),
- recalls that the cease-fire noted in resolution 687 was based on Iraq's compliance with it (! again no room for misinterpretation! No compliance = no cease-fire!),
- declares Iraq to be in "material breach" of resolution 687 (among others) — the burden is then obviously upon Iraq!
- gives Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply,
- reintroduces inspectors to verify Iraq's complete disarmament,
- declares that even false statements and omissions constitute material breach,
- bars Iraq from shooting at planes patrolling the no-fly zones,
- recalls previous warnings of serious consequences (this ties the meaning of the words "serious consequences" to language in the previous resolutions — aside from endless Council meetings, "all necessary means" remains the only consequence I've seen mentioned).
Conclusion
So with respect to those attempting to make the case that the current action is illegal: There is no case.
But they know that.
So what does it mean for the principal members of the UN Security Council to refuse to back their own words with action? It means the UN is dead.
The UN's principal purpose was to prevent men like Hitler from enjoying power — not to desperately struggle with such men only after they've made their first few conquests. Disagree? Read the charter. Specifically, read Article 1, paragraph 1.
Notice the part that says: "The Purposes of the United Nations are ... to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace"? That's what allowed the UN to write resolution 678 and follow through on it. It's what allowed the UN to push the brutal communists out of southern Korea. (Note that in the latter case this was a "civil war" not a conflict between states. The UN does not have a Star Trek-like Prime Directive. North and South Korea are separate governments, each founded to govern the whole of Korea.) To remove the sanction for the current action, the Security Council must resolve that resolutions 687 and 1441 have been satisfied or that resolution 678 is no longer in effect. And that new resolution must survive a U.S. veto. Not likely.
Since it's clear that the membership of the UN is now incapable of approving action that it was designed to take, the UN is now dead with respect to its principal purpose. Of course, some countries foresaw this long ago, and established systems of alliances, such as NATO, as another layer of protection in the event that the UN failed. And though NATO is not without flaw, it has not failed us yet. And its new membership (many former Soviet states and satellites) is fresh with the sorts of concerns and memories that will keep it purposeful for some time to come.
But that leaves the world without an effective body for deterring nations outside NATO. The future appears to be composed of unilateral actions and ad hoc posses led by the U.S. and by nations trying to emulate that pattern.
Some might say that's the way it's always been. I'm among them. But I can't deny the value of the UN in pacifying (pre-empting) those critics of the U.S. who'd like to foment movements that take action against the U.S. The argument that such action was "legal" by "international law" left their quest for adherents little oxygen. But the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings demonstrates that that pacifying effect has been gone for years. Our UN card ceased to be of value sometime between the Gulf War and the 9/11 attacks.
I wonder when the UN will realize it.
|
