From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 17:18:34 GMT
Hi Sam,
I think the rest of this is just an exercise in point clarification.
The essence of my last post is that we either work within the
International Law framework, trying to make it better, or we regress
to a world where might makes right. So, the rest of this is
academic, though interesting.
msh said:
I> 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.
sam:
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?
msh says:
Not exactly. The deadly sanctions were the US insisted and enforced
sanctions on food, medicine, medical equipment, industrial equipment
to be used in rebuiding sewage, water, electrical systems
deliberately destroyed during Iraq Attack 1991. The suffering
caused by Iraq's business dealings with other nations is invisible by
comparison.
> 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)
sam:
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'.
msh says:
I said nope because you seem to believe that the ONLY valid UNSC
response would be to OK a full-scale attack on Iraq. There were many
other things that could have been done. For example, sending back
the UN weapons inspectors, who had already said they were 95% done.
Iraq was amenable to this course of action, but the US WAS NOT. The
existing sanction regime could have been lifted or modified to be
better directed and less harsh. The US was against this as well. My
point is that the US would have been against any action in accordance
with IL, if such action did not include a stamp of approval for their
planned invasion.
sam:
(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).
msh says:
There is no reason to believe that a refined sanction regime, or
sending back UNMOVIC, would not have had positive effects. At any
rate, what's lost in trying? The only objection to trying is that
the US already has all this POWER in place, and they wanted to stay
on schedule.
Your last two comments, are summarised by this:
sam:
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.
msh says:
And I would say, as I did above, and in my previous post, that we
either work within the framework of International Law, addressing
its weaknesses and making it better, or we regress to a world where
might makes right.
Your position seems to be that the most powerful country on earth can
accept or reject IL as it sees fit. Clearly, this is rejecting the
concept of International Law, not embracing it. And, I don't know
about you, but that is not the kind of world I think we should be
struggling toward. Remember, the balance of violence can shift, and
almost certainly will.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." 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 - 17:30:36 GMT