War or no war, fly zone or no fly zone, UN or no UN: international laws of contradiction
Just time to pass a resolution, send inspectors, and voilà, Iraq 'breaching UN resolution'. Quick and painless. If only wars were really like that. Short and to the point, exactly like UN resolutions are. Or, rather, not... The safe stage of "multilateral" action has been set, but it's really no more than a show, when the room for interpretation has been left limitless. And especially when the very first "breach!" cry comes not from inspections - which haven't even started yet - but from something that may or may not be contemplated in the Security Council decisions. The space occupied by that "or" includes everything from total invasion to continuation of the air-strikes that have been offered to Iraqis as complimentary gifts of western democracy for the past ten years.
As a short reminder that war on Iraq has never really stopped since 1991, so it can't really start again (how about that for complicating further the knots of what remains of "international law", by now conveniently tangled up in a huge bundle of hypocrisy that, as usual, only bombs can untie), here's a quick overview of the issue with the no fly zones. If you don't get bored/sick/tired of the usual justifications, counter-justifications, sophisms and "humanitarian" excuses, especially those regarding civilian casualties. Take your pick:
...the no-fly zones were not authorised by the United Nations and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution...
...action was consistent with Security Council Resolution....
...the resolution did not say the Security Council was acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for enforcement action...
...whatever was justified in 1991 is not necessarily justified more than 10 years later...
...are now alone in the Security Council in insisting that their frequent bombing of Iraqi targets is covered by international law...
...under international law, there is a right to intervene to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe...
...condemned the no-fly zones as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty...
...there is no backing for the policy under international law or UN resolutions...
...hundreds of civilians have died in these attacks...
...disputed some of these figures, and insist they never target civilian areas...
...latest UN resolution on the disarmament of Iraq does not mention the no-fly zones...
...firing on British and American planes amounts to a violation of the UN resolution...
See how useful is the UN when you need a "legal position"? You can get any resolution to mean exactly anything you like. Don't you just wish it worked like that for your tax returns, but no, on that sort of thing, the laws are usually overly precise.
Post a Comment