From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 12:40:22 GMT
Hi Mark,
The legal bit.
> An excellent analysis of the legality of the USG-UKG unilateral
> action against Iraq is available here, at the Lawyers' Committee on
> Nuclear Policy website:
>
> http://www.lcnp.org/global/IraqOpinion10.9.02.pdf
Very interesting paper.
> This legal brief was performed by objective third party analysts,
> which is to say that it was not performed by US-UK lawyers advocating
> in favor of the attack.
Some side (snide?) comments: not sure that a) it is true that Matrix chambers are 'objective', they
are seen as left-wing and, ironically enough, Mrs Tony Blair, aka Cherie Booth, is one of their
members; b) why are we using 'objective' as a form of praise?; c) you've come dangerously close to
defining 'objective' as those who disagree with US/UK, which makes it a bit circular.
But enough of these rhetorical quibbles. On with the show :-)
I think there is room for dissent to that legal opinion, but for the sake of our discussion, let us
agree that paragraph 75 is correct, that the UN 'occupied the field', and that a second resolution
was needed for an invasion to be in accordance with international law (IL). Such a second resolution
was not obtainable, and therefore the subsequent unilateral action by US/UK was a material breach of
IL. The debate is therefore whether the situation demanded such an action due to force of
circumstance, in other words that the 'lynching' - lets call it the 'taking of law into their own
hands' - even if it was de jure illegal, was de facto in accordance with the underlying intentions
and purpose of IL. That's what I think we need to debate.
We were agreed on steps 1 - 4 of the argument as presented.
> sam:
> 5. Those sanctions a) were breaking down (largely thanks to French
> and Russian oil interests), and b) were causing huge human suffering
> within Iraq
>
> msh says:
> Actually, the WORKING sanctions caused far more human suffering than
> anything done by Hussein, but I digress.
I don't think this is a digression. I think this is absolutely central to the argument. Can we agree
that the sanctions system in place was monstrous, leading to the death of some 500,000 children, for
example?
> Even if it could be proved that France and Russia were somehow
> corrupt in their participation in the UN process, which is highly
> doubtful,
I don't think it is doubtful, that is, I think it no more or less doubtful than that the US/UK were
corrupt in their participation. As your argument seems to be that the US/UK were so corrupt, are you
saying that France/Russia are more moral than US/UK? I would think that a difficult argument to
sustain.
Two useful bits of info:
According to figures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, between 1973
and 2002 Russia supplied 57 per cent of Saddam's arms imports, France 13 per cent and China 12 per
cent. The US supplied at most just 1 per cent and Britain significantly less than that. Brazil
supplied more weaponry to Saddam than the US and Britain combined.
France and Russia had ongoing and significant economic interests in the Hussein regime (which the
US/UK didn't), see for example
http://www.memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/themen/oekonomie/eco_irak_27_03_03.pdf; compare the
benefits flowing from the (corrupted) oil-for-food program going to French firms to US/UK firms.
> this would not legitimize unilateral rogue action on the
> part of any member state.
Agreed, but irrelevant to this step of the argument (as with previous steps - we're coming to the
crux later on)
> There are in place UN procedures for
> dealing with accusations of "corruption" of member states, whatever
> that means. Also, I hope you appreciate the irony in saying that
> Russia and France were against the attack because of their oil
> interests, given what I (and most of the world) claim to be one of
> the obvious reasons for the USG attack in the first place.
Well, maybe it was ironic, but you haven't overcome this step in the argument, which I'll restate:
the sanctions regime against Iraq a) was breaking down (largely thanks to French and Russian
_economic_ interests), and b) were causing huge human suffering within Iraq. Therefore the status
quo was unsustainable. Would you agree with the addition of that last sentence, given your reference
to the suffering caused by 'working' sanctions?
> sam:
> 6. The defence of IL therefore required the UN to support a military
> removal of the Hussein regime.
>
> msh says:
> Nope. If the sanctions were indeed "breaking down" then
> International Law requires further action by the UNSC; International
> Law does not permit a "lynching" by a disgruntled UN member state.
> (See my previous post, and LCNP points 50-60)
This is a non sequitur in your response: "If the sanctions were indeed "breaking down" then
International Law requires further action by the UNSC" is exactly what I was referring to, so I
don't understand why you preface it with 'Nope'. So let me restate this step in the argument: The
defence of IL required the UN to take further steps, through the UNSC and through the proclamation
of new resolutions, to support a military removal of the Hussein regime. (By the way, I'm assuming
at this step that other non-military options were not available by this time, as they would simply
have run into the same problems that the existing sanctions regime had).
> sam:
> 7. The UN was unable to act due to corruption/inadequacy/morality
> (take your pick).
>
> msh says:
> See above. The US bailed out of the UN process because it didn't
> like the way the process was going, that is, that the process was not
> going to permit them to do what they wanted, which was to invade
> Iraq. This is more of the "lynching party" defense.
Well, the 'see above' I don't think made the point that you thought it did. But we're agreeing that
the 'lynching party' is the key step, what I want to do is break down the argument into logical
steps. How about I restate this as 'The UN did not take such further steps" - as this sidesteps the
questions about motivation. (In other words, I see this as a simple factual point)
> sam:
> 8. The US therefore acted independently.
>
> msh says:
> Yes. They acted independently, but not legally or morally, as I
> believe my quick look at your argument has revealed.
Well, I don't think your quick look has revealed what you think. The key question about whether the
US action was itself within IL wasn't part of my original argument (item 8 above), and I'm happy to
accept (pro tem) that the action was illegal under the prevailing IL system. My point is that the
system had failed, and that in these circumstances an illegal action was the 'best action
available'. That's where the disagreement between us lies, I think. But I'm interested to hear your
further take on 5 and 6 above, as that is where the 'meat' is.
Regards
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 17 2004 - 14:31:33 GMT