Illegal and immoral?
Archbishop-of-Canterbury-in-waiting Rowan Williams, and many others, have claimed that UK support for a US attack on Irag would be illegal and immoral. Morality arguments are in the eye of the beholder, so I just want to address the claim of illegality.
UN Security Council resolution 678 authorized the use of force against Iraq. Resolution 687 set forth the terms of the cease fire, including the arms inspection regime among other things.
From Resolution 687:
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction,
removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all
related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and
related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
Now, even Kofi Annan admits that Iraq has failed to comply with this and other agreements.
Again, from Resolution 687:
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit
or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization
directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to
condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of
Well. Isn't that interesting. We know that Mohammed Atta probably met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. We also know (same link) that the Iraqis were probably plotting to attack the headquarters of Radio Free Liberty. In addition, Hussein publicly brags that he gives blood money to the families of suicide bombers. Clearly another violation.
I have to assume that this allows the US to act under the auspices of Resolution 678, which authorizes us:
to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all
subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area;
Got that? All subsequent resolutions, including the cease-fire resolution. I do not cater to the idea that the UN or "international law" dicate whether something is legal or illegal, but even by the leftist definitions, the US would not be acting illegally if we invade Iraq.
Furthermore, it is in fact the rest of the world that would be violating "international law" if they fail to support an invasion (resolution 378 again):
Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of
the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of internationalnd
peace and security,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the
actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
Paragraph 2 is the one quoted previously. It seems clear that, in the internationalist worldview, the US would not only be correct to invade Iraq, but the rest of the UN member countries are obliged to aid us.
Bishop Williams, it is you who advocate illegal activity.
Posted On 8/7/2002
by Kieran Lyons
Drum roll please...
Hello and welcome to our new blog. Back on July 19th I finally gave up on blogger, due to its horrible unreliablity. Since then, I've spent a little time ginning up some scripts and database tables, and created my own blogging software. This is the result of my rather modest efforts. I have added a script to my old blogspot site that automagically jumps you to this site, but archive links to the old site will still work. Old posts from blogspot have been copied here, and are accessible from the archive links to the left.
Posted On 8/4/2002
by Kieran Lyons
This is a certified BLOGGER FREE ZONE™. That means this site's archive/publishing software actually work.
Yes, I once used blogger, but I just became fed up with its bugs and outages.
I'm more of an embedded software guy by trade, so this is my first foray into web based programming. I'm about as web-illiterate as a geek can be. Please bear with me, and let me know if links are broken, or if anything else gets hosed.