1441 - Who has read it?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Below is text from 1441 and some of my comments in correspondence with my brother.

...
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) ...

Comment: 1441 already authorizes "Member States" to use "all necessary means" to uphold and implement UN resolutions. It doesn't say the UN as a whole, it emphasizes that "member states" can do the job if necessary.

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), ...

Comment: The UN is stating that Iraq has not complied with the terms of the cease fire.

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites ...

Comment: The UN is stating that Iraq has actively and intentionally not complied with the terms of the cease fire.

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population ...

Comment: The UN is stating that Iraq still supports terrorism, represses its populations, etc.

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Comment: The UN is reminding Iraq that the cease fire was contingent upon Iraq's compliance with the UN resolutions. Since Iraq is not complying, there is in fact no cease fire, and the war never ended. Since the war never ended, and the US is a principal combatant, we are still engaged in wat and any future action would just be an additional operation under previously approved action.

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions ...

Comment: The UN is ready to enforce its resolutions, and demands full and immediate compliance. The UN has spoken...

...and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Comment: Confirming once again that Iraq is currently in breach of UN resolutions.

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), ...

Comment: Again confirms that Iraq is in breach of UN resolutions, including the cease fire contingency resolution (= currently in state of war. Maybe the UN doesn't read its own documents?)

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; ...

Comment: This is a good strong one. This is an ultimatum to Iraq. Even though SOB Iraq has been ignoring the UN for years, this resolution represents its one last chance, a final opportunity, to comply. "Final opportunity" means last chance means there won't be ANY MORE chances after this one. This is your last chance Iraq. Isn't this crystal clear?

3. ... the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes ...

Comment: Iraq's document from December is the foundation, bedrock of its presentation to the UN that it is serious about complying. It must disclose everything in this report.

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution ... shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

Comment: Even ommissions are considered a breach because it is clear to UN that in a totalitarian regime that does not have independent bureaucracies, there is no possibility that Saddam's regime could not know about illegal activities. By nature it knows about everything, orders everything, controls everything, and therefore should be able to report everything within 30 days. All member states, and the UN authorized agents UNMOVIC/IAEA agree that TO THIS DAY Saddam has not fully disclosed all information that Iraq was given one "final" chance to disclose in December.

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

Comment: UN is still fighting with Iraq on many of these issues. Iraq did not comply. Through threat of US force, Iraq has begun to allow interviews, but it is a fight every time. There are current proposals (03/12/03) to once again request that Iraq allow its scientists and their families to go to Cyprus for interviews. This was not an issue open to debate ever. Iraq remains in breach.

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

Comments: None - I haven't seen the letter.

...

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

Comment: We had to fight to get U2 missions. One was threatened just yesterday.

...

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

Comment: Iraq has been pretty clear in denouncing US/UK efforts to enforce UN resolutions, has threatened all sorts of hostile acts, and regularly threatens US/UK aircraft by using "active" AA radar acquisition. There is a big difference between "active" targeting and "passive" tracking with radar. This is not a point I would press, but the UN cleary stated that Iraq cannot threaten member states.

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Comments: No one would argue that Iraq has cooperated immediately, unconditionally, and actively. The Iraqi regime has taken a bit by bit approach throughout the whole process requiring the UN (US/UK actually) to continually escalate the threat of force. This is not part of Iraq's last chance deal.

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Comments: We shall see later if all member states have cooperated fully...

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

Comment: Blix's complete January (60 day report) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html, does not report that Iraq is in compliance. Neither have any reports before or since.

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

Comment: The UN has convened regularly on these issues. All agree Saddam is not yet in compliance = Saddam is in breach. All agree that the military threat has been a key to increasing cooperation.

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Comment: If full and immediate compliance with 1441 was Iraq's last/final chance (no more chances); and if everyone agrees that military action is the last/final option, then Iraq's continued breach and non-compliance mean that war is a legitimate outcome.

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

* * *



Can you clarify these comments please regarding 1441:

"It was a pretty serious document with clear repercussions for non-compliance."

What is "pretty serious"?


"I meant its a strong document that clearly stated that Iraq is not in compliance, and that this is its last chance to immediately, completely, etc., comply. "

What is a "repercussion"? Who decides these things?

"Simple. This was Iraq's last and final chance. Last and Final are pretty clear. Decisive overwhelming force is the last resort when the last chance has been used up. Renegotiating something is just another chance after the last chance. Maybe they meant "latest" chance, i.e. this is your latest and most recent chance to comply Saddam....? Pressuring someone is not a last resort. Writing him letters is not a last resort. Complaining is not a last resort. Saddam is not complying. If the UN gives Saddam more chances to comply, then 1441 was not really his last chance. Debate the merits later, but the language is clear."

What is an "immediate consequence"? Was it smart bombs or fresh baked pies for the children if Iraq - I don't think the UN clarified.

"See above. Please be serious. Please describe for me what a violation by Iraq of its last chance could possibly mean. Remember - no more chances. What is your interpretation? "

I believe 1441 was passed unanimously because certain language regarding "authorization of force" was removed. I also believe that Saddam is playing the US/ rest of the World divide like anyone in his shoes would -- he believes as strongly as the US that he is doing the moral thing.


"People can read XXX. The document is clear. It also reminds us that the war never in fact ended. Read carefully. You don't honestly try to support the morality of Saddam's position, do you?"

I'm also working on specifics on this but: I believe it's the US that has consistently turned it's back on the UN - chipping away at it's potential as a legitimate entity. Currently I believe the US is trying to manipulate it for it's own purposes (regime change in Iraq).

"I think the regime change argumant is pretty clear:

If Saddam is still in violation (all agreed)
then he is a threat (all agreed - 1441 underscores why the resolutions were passed in the first place, i.e. Saddam is a threat).

His continued violation means that we need to decide if he can be trusted to fulfill his obligations. Maybe he is the problem. I will let the French foreign minister close my argument:

DE VILLEPIN: Yes, but then what would you say? Whatever he does, you will say he's a dictator. How can you trust a dictator? And we share that view . "


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/This...ript030302.html

I like your comments..

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Comment: If full and immediate compliance with 1441 was Iraq's last/final chance (no more chances); and if everyone agrees that military action is the last/final option, then Iraq's continued breach and non-compliance mean that war is a legitimate outcome.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There are an awful lot of big "IF"s in your comments here, among them being "if everyone agrees" which does seem to be among today's problems in the U.N...

The "if's" are more rhetorical. Do you agree that 1441 states that it affords Saddam a final opportunity to immediately comply? Do you think that anyone considers military action to be anything other than the last/final resort to non-compliance? Please provide examples of what other last resorts could be. As my brother suggested, maybe they were referring to the last resort of sending Saddam apple pies?


(brother) I believe 1441 was passed unanimously because certain language regarding "authorization of force" was removed. I also believe that Saddam is playing the US/ rest of the World divide like anyone in his shoes would -- he believes as strongly as the US that he is doing the moral thing.

I, too, believe there is a strong case for this, that the document was carefully doctored in order to receive unanimous support from the U.N., where in original form, it may not have been quite so compelling..

Actually those were my hippie brother's comments. While people certainly thought about the document while it was being written, and Saddam will certainly do anything he can to save his ass, I don't see the point of discussing this issue. 1441 passed unanimously - end of story. It is the law. UN member states are obliged to support and uphold its resolutions. UN member states are bickering, but until they pass a resolution that amends or deletes the terms of 1441, it is the French et al who are undermining the UN.

The problem with this forum is that everyone agrees...



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think that anyone considers military action to be anything other than the last/final resort to non-compliance? Please provide examples of what other last resorts could be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, yes. They are arguing that there must be some as-yet-undiscovered, diplomatic alternative solution to military action and "bombing the f**k out of mums & dads & kiddies". And hence one of the explanation for the hesitation to support the U.S. from additional U.N. members. Personally, I don't think there are any reasonable diplomatic alternatives.

OK. Its almost a cliche "War is the last resort." It is the end of diplomacy. There is nothing final in diplomacy. If we did follow my brother's suggestion and send apple pies to the children of Iraq as our final and serious consequence, what if Saddam were to confiscate the pies and eat them himself. Diplomacy is action/reaction. An ongoing process. War is a final settling of accounts that results in a winner and a loser. It is final - or at least as final as you can get.

i relish the thought. please point them over here.

if you take away the vested but well veiled interests, naive feel good populist sentiment, i don't see the basis for arguments that accuse the US of ignoring the UN.

i can't figure out all of the opposition. i agree war is not a GOOD thing, but in our interpretation of 1441, and our determination to see it enforced, why are we the bad guys?

i will admit the administration has done a bad job presenting its case, but that doesn't mean the case itself is wrong.

Well, if you haven't yet read it, check out sable's Little men in a coward's castle thread. This is another, in my opinion, important argument that should be directly countered with the points you make here which contend that res 1441, indeed justifies action and that it is not unilateral at that, despite present opposition in the U.N.