Solving the mess in Iraq

Remove all ads!

I was simply answering ragusa request to show how the 3 member states of the security council set-up the no-fly zones via res. 688. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me given the 19 resolutions against iraq in the preceding year. They(the member states) had already been told that they are authorised to use any & all means necessary to subdue iraq & this use of force was reaffirmed after iraq was removed from kuwait. So how does a resolution telling them to do whatever is necessary to help the kurdish population NOT authorise them to set up a no-fly zone? It actually was a carte-blanche to do just about anything they wanted.

 

Uh...no, they didn't. 3 member states of the security council may well have set up no-fly zones, but they most assuredly didn't do it via resolution 688. Not expressly forbidding something and giving something the OK are not the same thing. If you believe that 688 set up no-fly zones, you also have to believe that the no-fly zones were set up to "address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population". Unless you can somehow prove that this was the reason for the no-fly zones, we know that they weren't set up via resolution 688.

 

Uh...yes, they did. You & ragusa may not like they fact that they used res 688 to do it but they did, so get over it.
And technically the no-fly zone was setup in resolution 687. a 15 kilometer demilitarised zone between iraq & kuwait.

 

Martaug, if you chose to use the term misused, you'd have a point. I'm not saying that the no-fly zone shouldn't have been set up, but if - after reading it - you still honestly believe that 688 authorized any no-fly zones, I'd like a swig or two of what you've been drinking. Or maybe not...

 

Drew - It was John Adams who made that famous quote, not Reagan. Reagan attempted to quote Adams in a speech and jacked-it-up, saying that "facts were stupid things." How Freudian is that?

 

No drew, i can honestly say after reading resolution 688 AFTER reading the preceding resolutions that have precedent on the matter it basically gave them(the member states) carte-blanche to do whatever they needed to due to stop saddam's attacks. If that consisted of no-fly zones than so be it. Why are you having so much difficulty understanding that? TWO prior resolutions had already authorised any & all measures deemed necessary by member states against this rogue nation & the resolution immediately prior to this one HAD set up a 15 kilometer DMZ between the 2 countries. So all the language of resolution 688 did was allow them to expand it even further. It's clear as water to me, i don't see what the confusion is.

 

This seems to be the part of the resolution that you are using to make your claim, so I'll quote it here.

Bold mine. What part of "to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population" do you not understand? This is clearly and obviously a human rights resolution.

I'm not arguing about whether they had carte blanche to do whatever was needed to stop Saddam's attacks (but Ragusa probably is) because what we are talking about is whether or not resolution 688 provided it. My clear and obvious point is that - if they had such carte blanche - it did not come from resolution 688.

 

I agree Drew; however, precedents had been set with very recent resolutions just prior to 688 where force was subsequently authorized. As I said before, I agree that 688 did not specifically state force was authorized -- it did not state that force was not authorized either -- yet the use of force was a reasonable next step when looking at the precedents.

Of course, none of this argument addresses the issue of solving the mess in Iraq.

 

You know, T2, I was just about to mention that -- we all agree that it's a mess, and we can vilify the US 'til the cows come home, but what is the best course of action not just for the US, but also for the world? The more I think about it the more I feel that the US should just bail out now, offering to take as many Iraqis out of there as want to come (if said Iraqis are afraid of being killed in the violence that will follow) and just leaving the various groups there to fight it out. There should also be a warning -- any government that comes to power that tries a stunt like the Kuwait invasion will be smashed flat again. The US should then focus on not being dependent on foreign oil.

Would people die? In the thousands. Is there any force on earth that can stop that? Not likely. So if the US follows a policy that reflects its own interests (which every country does, why Ragusa and some others seem to think that the US shouldn't is beyond me) and conserves the lives of its own citizen soldiers, I don't think it's a bad deal.

 

Look, these people have very deeply held religious beliefs: They would kill each other with kitchen knives if they get the chance. It may be that the only solution is to partition off the country, if there is a change in policy.

But the real issue here, under the Bush doctrine, is that the US does NOT want to leave Iraq, ever. We are there as long as the oil is there....

 

Chandos, just like T2 told ragusa, take off you bush hating glasses. Statements like your last one make it impossible to reason with you like a sensible person.

 

Drew,
thank you for making my point on resolution 688.

I do not deny that there was a humanitarian situation that required delivering aid. That is out of the question. I am highly sceptic about whether there was truly a genocide. There are no crimes worse than genocide, which accounts for the popularity and frequency with which it is levelled against enemies. Let me put it that way, when contemplating war, beware of babies in incubators.

more generally,
as for the outrage over my scepticism on whether Saddam actually committed genocide on the Kurds, I call him a ruthless tyrant who brutally cracked down on uppity minorities, a mass murderer. I don't exactly call that an endorsement.

martaug,
the reason why Drew is right goes beyond merely the the literal text. I will sketch the legal background and try to keep it as brief as I can without sacrificing accuracy.

Article 1 of the UN charter reiterates the basic principle of sovereign equality of all nations that actually pre-dates the charter itself. This is one of the pillars of the international order. You will recall that US national sovereignty is commonly cited as a reason why the US right in particular somewhat reflexively opposes international treaties. They do not want to abrogate or restrict US national sovereignty through international treaties.

What is sovereignty? Article 2 of the U. N. Charter embraces the principles which serve as the foundation for the United Nations. These principles include sovereignty, equality and non-intervention. Sovereignty qualifies the power by which any independent state is governed. This power is supreme, absolute and uncontrollable. To possess sovereignty, a nation requires its international independence together with the right and the power to regulate its internal affairs without foreign dictation. A sovereign nations controls its citizens, territory and airspace.

The principle of equality is inextricably linked to the principle of sovereignty.If all states possess sovereignty, then they may not be placed in any kind of hierarchy. To place nations into a hierarchy of sovereignty would also order the interests of the nations involved in the hierarchy. The interests of some nations would be maximized while the needs of other nations would be relegate to a lower priority. To avoid this result the principle of equality requires the United Nations to treat all nations equally as sovereign nations.

The principle of non-intervention requires that nation states refrain from intervening in the domestic affairs of another state. This requirement has been recognized as customary international law. The principle of non-intervention also stems from the principle of sovereignty. If by definition a sovereign nation is endowed with the power to regulate its internal affairs without foreign dictation, it is also true that it should also remain free from the intervention of other sovereign nations. If a foreign state prevails in its intervention, a nation’s sovereignty is inevitably compromised in some manner. That is a very important thing to understand and utterly uncontroversial. You'll find it in any book on international law.

On a more practical matter that also means that a practically implemented policy of regime change in a foreign country is with its formulation already an unfriendly act, and it it results in palpable measures it easily crosses the line to aggression (one might think of the Nicaragua case at the ICC). In light of this we find a very simple and logical explanation for the multitude of official US reasons for war. Why do I say that? You cannot openly spell out 'regime change' as a legal justification in international law, because such a policy in itself violates international law. This is the most likely reason why the US had to revert to issues like enforcing disarmament, destruction of WMD, (undeniable) Iraqi human rights violations and the like as 'supporting acts' and why so much was said and written about regime change, but why this was so conspicuously absent from the legal documents and the international dispute.

When you understand that you begin to look at US lamentations on the dire threat posed by Saddam in a more sober way.


To get back to the UN charter, In chapter VII the charter lists coercive measures that can be imposed by the UN security council on an offending country and that override its national sovereignty in this regard (and not entirely). Those measures are enumerated in Art.39 to Art.42 UN charter. Much like a police warrant, the resulting resolution will enumerate based on which article a certain action is undertaken. At least it will refer to Chapter VII, take the classic example of resolution 661 and 678 with the equally classic formula "The Security Council, ... Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter," followed by concrete steps.

Imposing no-fly zones on another country does infringe on its sovereignty. It is thus only allowed in self defence or under a UN mandate, that means it will invoke chapter VII UN charter. To spare you futile searching, in none of the resolutions there is such an explicit mandate for a no-fly zone, and any 'implicit' reading' of such a sovereignty-breaking mandates out of ambiguous language would be a deviation of UN legal practice. Because nobody knows what the other side is smoking, international lawyers keenly take care of their language. Correspondingly, there is no such thing as an implicit mandate from the UN security council. That said, how did the US get away with (let's be charitable: creatively) claiming such an implicit mandate anyway? You will not like what I write now, so you might consider skipping the next section.

What the US did was to take something ambiguous, much like you do, and to claim it gave them a mandate, and go ahead. That included steps the other members were against. One could say that the US cheated Saddam and the UN on this (as I said before, instrumentalisation ...), thus my reference to the great skill of the US negotiators who made sure there was such language. What they then did was to tell a tall tale with a straight face, and as a veto wielding power they were able to block any decision on the matter and any challenge to their story by the other permanent members. That is so because veto wielding powers also determine the items on the agenda of the UN security council. The US repeated that sleight of hand a second time when they finally invaded Iraq in 2003, again without a UN mandate.

The policy itself pre-dates Bush, btw. The policy goal of regime change in Iraq was carried by a bipartisan consensus. Bush only put it to its logical and most radical conclusion when he finally invaded Iraq.


Now while one might think that that bastard Saddam did deserve all that, would you subject the US under the principle of reciprocity to the same? That it is unrealistic to expect that to ever happen doesn't take away the point of the question. That is what I meant when I referred to the apparently irresistible temptation to ignore the international order when it is convenient. To do so is destabilising in the same way as vigilanteism would undermine the domestic rule of law.

 

Sorry LDK, Ragusa's not done yet....

However, I do not believe a pull-out would be acceptable to the US or the world (with a few extremist exceptions). I think pulling out is a bad idea because the loss of life would be too great a price to pay -- not, as Chandos put it, because "there's (black) gold in them thar' hills."

 

Ok, once again. Ragusa, nice points,however everything you posted about sovereignty & equality of nations iraq threw out the window when they invaded kuwait. Everything after that was a direct effect to that cause.
Again, the member nations had been authorised to used any & all measures to make iraq adhere to these resolutions. Resolution 687 had already set up a 15 kilometer DeMilitarised Zone between iraq & kuwait. Their sovereignty had been & was going to be compromised until they meet ALL of the condition set forth in the UN's resolutions. Notice that that is the UN's resolutions & not the U.S.'s.
They didn't need to specifically list which actions they were going to take as they had already been authorised to use any & all means & actions necesarry.
Geez ragusa, thats like arguing that an infinite number has limits.

@T2Bruno, of course a pullout would be acceptable to that part of the world that hates america. We are in a catch-22 with them, damned if we do good & damned if do wrong.

 

LKD,
what I write about is not about vilification but to create what I find lacking, an understanding of how US policies towards Iraq emerged and what they were about. That that includes unpleasant observations is probably inevitable. The genesis of the war and the intent with which it was launched will also help understand actual US war aims and whether they are realistic. I'm still caught in the spirit of the Aufklärung.

I don't have a problem with US policies that reflect their interest. What I am concerned about is policies that are being pursued that are not, or are wrongly believed to be in the US interest. Insisting on regime change in Iraq and now in Iran is one such thing. Insisting on staying in Iraq is another.

I do think that the US cannot fix Iraq, and also cannot win in Iraq, and that they are well advised to leave now they can do that on their own, and relatively good terms.

martaug,
I have given you the key. You need to find out where to put it.

 

...Talk about it.

Do you really think that all the talk about permanent bases is just for the fun of it? The Bush Doctrine IS a permanent military presence in Iraq. I just don't know if you are in denial, or someone who can't take off his "Bush loving glasses."

 

I guess that depends on what you mean by the terms "win" and "fix". One theory is the best thing for the USA to do is to smash the country completely and utterly ("back to the stone age" was the phrase used when they went into Afghanistan) so that the Iraqis can never again challenge American authority. That's immoral, however, and so they can't do that. In brutal terms, though, that would qualify as a "win".

As it stands now, there is AFAIK a democratically elected government in Iraq -- does the UN accept it as the legitimate government of Iraq? If they do, and the UN's opinion matters (I'm not sure it does all the time) then if that democratically elected government still wants US aid then by the logic you applied about sovereignty means that the US is not committing any moral wrong by their presence NOW in Iraq, even if their original invasion was legally invalid. Of course, realistically we know that the government there exists only because the US props it up, but if it has legal legitimacy then that's that, right? I know for a fact many Iraqis don't see the government as legit, but legally speaking they're terrorists or at least criminals. American allies around the world would likely lose respect for and faith in the US if they backed out now on an erstwhile ally.

 

While I agree with the first statement, the second one is irrelevant. Starting a war over oil and money, bombing schools and hospitals, torture, etc, are all immoral. That hasn't stopped the US from doing this kind of thing. Then again it doesn't seem to stop a very large number of states and heads of states (Israel, Hussein's Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kim Jong Il, Pinochet, Mugabe... the list is long and depressing) from doing immoral things.

Yes and no. The Iraqi parliament is democratically elected, but most of the key members of the government were "suggested" by the US and the UK (Jack Straw interfered a number of times with such "suggestions"). That's more than just "propping" the government, especially when you consider that the non-Iraqi military presence (including the US military, the UK military and the various mercenary companies) do not answer to the Iraqi government. That said, a number of people throw the "if they wanted us to do things differently they would have said so" many times, ignoring Nouri Al-Maliki's many calls (most notably after the Blackwater people gunned down civilians for no reason) to be less trigger-happy.

Define "legal legitimacy" and "they are legally terrorists". The French Resistance was illegal during the Nazi occipation of France in 1940-1944, per the (albeit not democratically elected government) government at the time. Nowadays you'd be hard pressed to find someone who considers the Resistance to be "terrorists". Now I'm perfectly fine with the word "terrorist" being used to describe those who blow themselves up and kill hundreds of civilians in the process, but applying it to anyone who "doesn't see the government as legit" is WAY pushing it.

 

Chandos, we have permanent bases in germany, korea,cuba & okinawa just to name a few. So following your "logic" are we to assume that we are occuping these countries too?

Ragusa, i answered your questions with clear & concise answers. I think you know where you can put your key