Mudcat Café message #1706210 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #73264   Message #1706210
Posted By: Arne
29-Mar-06 - 10:56 PM
Thread Name: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
BeardedBruce:

[BeardedBruce claimed: "I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see."]


First link: Date Nov. 8, 2002


Second link: Date Nov. 8, 2002 (and a repeat of the first one)


Third link: Date Feb. 19, 2003.
The debate, which heard from more than 60 speakers, in two days, was called for by the Non-Aligned Movement and held in the wake of last Friday's briefing by the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Hans Blix, and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. They reported that Iraq's cooperation on procedural matters had recently improved and they had not found any weapons of mass destruction. They pointed out, however, that many banned weapons remained unaccounted for, requiring Iraq's 'immediate, unconditional and active' cooperation.
...
Although the world seemed perched on the thin edge of war, said the Indonesian representative, the situation was not hopeless and the objectives of resolution 1441 (2002) could still be met. Resolution 1441 was a finely structured text, which defined the disarmament scenario before Iraq and clearly outlined the consequences for default or violations. In formulating the next step, it was only right that the inspectors and the results of the inspections be taken into account. To authorize war without doing so would amount to 'preconceived warfare' and seriously undermine the Council.

The representative of Norway agreed that time had not run out and the use of force was not unavoidable, but more inspectors or better equipment could not, by themselves, resolve the outstanding issues. As Dr. Blix had said last Friday, the period of disarmament through inspections could be 'short' if Iraq chose to cooperate fully, as required. It was a challenge to the Council and an affront to the international community that Iraq was withholding full cooperation.

Similarly, the representative of Canada said that more time for inspections could be useful, but only if Iraq decided to cooperate fully and transparently, starting now. While that cooperation was beginning, it was being offered grudgingly and only after intense pressure and the deliberate build-up of military forces in the region. To make clear to Iraq what was expected, the Council must lay out a list of key remaining disarmament tasks and establish an early deadline for compliance. That would allow the international community to judge whether Iraq was cooperating on substance, and not just on process.
I'd note that three of the listed speakers mentioned "material breach", but only one of them (Macedonia) was claiming a clear "material breach" existed. And not a single instance of "substantial non-compliance".

Nothing a little searching couldn't resolve, or at least help significantly, as Blix told them. And with "improv[ing] ... cooperation", hard to keep maintaining there's some "material breach" justifying 2300 U.S. soldiers (and many more Iraqis) dead ... but I know you don't give a damn about them or their families, Brucie....

Again, note the date. And note that points brought up in debate by member countries are hardly the "sense of the U.N.", much less U.N. resolutions.

Then you quote:

"December 19: the Security Council hears an initial, closed-doors assessment of the Iraqi dossier from Drs. Blix and ElBaradei. Both officials tell reporters that the declaration appears deficient in important respects...."

Ummm, hate to say it, Brucie, but the declarations of Iraq turned out to be far less "deficient" than the declarations of the U.S. before the U.N. Might have looked like "breach" to some folks, but that doesn't make it an actual breach, does it? Are you willing to at least grant that point?


Fourth link: Through Feb. 1, 2003 (actually, has stuff to about Feb. 5, 2003, when Powell gave his ginned up "dog'n'pony" show to the U.N.).


Fifth link: Date Mar. 12, 2003. Debate on what to do. Well, let me tell you, Brucie, the U.S. pushed for armed invasion, but the U.N. was a hell of a lot smarter than Dubya, and resisted. In the end, while Dubya had promised to force a vote on a new resolution that would presumably have found Iraq in non-compliance and authorised Dubya's blood-letting, Dubya had to renege on his promise when it was obvious that he wouldn't even get more than 5 of the Security Council members to go along with him (despite arm-twisting and bribes). So don't pretend that the U.N. authorised anything like what Dubya did, no matter what was said by the various parties in debate. Like this:

"The African position, he continued, did not endorse war at the present stage. The international community, through the inspectors, must subject the sincerity of Iraq's promise of full cooperation and compliance with relevant resolutions to some rigorous test. Any war against Iraq would have to be sanctioned by a resolution from the Council."

More from the debate:

"Iraq's continued full cooperation with inspectors must be the basis for the peaceful settlement of the crisis and the subsequent lifting of sanctions."

and:

CHUCHAI KASEMSARN (Thailand) welcomed Iraq's further cooperation with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), enabling them to make progress in their inspections.

Even less in that debate about "material breach". And once again, not a single instance of "substantial non-compliance". But once again, two points, Brucie: It's the U.N. Security Council (and not individual member states) that gets to decide if there's a "material breach" of UNSCR 1441. And even if they decide that (which they didn't do), it is they who get to decide what to do about it. Not Dubya. Dubya can't claim any U.N. backing for his sanguinary little war, because they refused to back it. Period. Not to mention that Dubya's little war is arguably contrary to the U.N. Charter.


Seventh link: Date Nov. 8, 2002. And a repeat of previous links.


Eighth link: Date Feb. 11, 2003

"But he took a more positive line than in his report two weeks ago, saying Baghdad had made progress in a number of areas."

And then there's this:

"Mr Blix cast doubt on American intelligence material presented to the Security Council last week by US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

He said he had no evidence that Iraq had had advance warning of inspections - as has been claimed by the United States - and questioned satellite images said to show suspicious movement at an Iraqi weapons site.


Big, fat, red flag there.


Ninth link: Freeperville. 'Nuff said.


Endless repetition of the same ol' crap is not any kind of proof, Brucie. Where'd the U.N. find that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" or "material breach"? Still waiting ...... and waiting ....... and waiting ...............

Cheers,