UK/Spain/US abandon second resolution plans

seamus

from skynews.co.uk

RESOLUTION ABANDONED

Britian and America have abandoned plans to secure a second UN resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the UN, said Britain, America and Spain "reserve their right to take their own steps to secure the disarmament of Iraq".

More follows ..

Last Updated: 15:13 UK, Monday March 17, 2003

Looks like they're goin to war

Clintons Cat

i think that they dont actually need a second resolution under terms of previous resolution.

>>>Un inspectors have just been withdrawn.

Thats it then.

mike65

No surprises there, it was only a question of wether
they'd be hang on trying to get 9 of the 15 votes and with the vetos from France and Russia that was'nt likely.

The UN security council is now an irrelevance....

Mike.

Von

Tally ho.



I hope this chap finds a more appropriate uniform by tomorrow. He can't possibly go to war dressed like that.

aine

the Brittish ambassador to the un seemed highly upset that anyone would plan to use their democratic right to veto any proposal put foward by themselves or the US, how dare they?!!

hmmmm doesnt look good for post war Iraq!! A state designed by good old George W and his trusty side kick Tony!

sceptre

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
i think that they dont actually need a second resolution under terms of previous resolution.

1441 doesn't contain the three crucial words to allow anyone to invade, occupy and overthrow. Neither did 642.

mike65

OT on this important day whats Today FM broadcasting right now? The Last Word with Matt Cooper...nope trashy pop music! Why does everything come to a halt in this country on a bank holliday...

Mike.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by mike65
Why does everything come to a halt in this country on a bank holliday...

That includes our government! How long do we have to wait to hear what they think about all this? Another week is it?

Clintons Cat

1441 doesn't contain the three crucial words to allow anyone to invade, occupy and overthrow. Neither did 642.

642 is the wrong resolution,i think your thinking of 687

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph,

33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

Resolution 687

Lennoxschips

Everytime journalists have asked UN officials if Iraq is violating 1441, the answer has always been "No". Bush has absolutely no justification.

All I hear in the news is that "diplomacy has failed". Failed to do what? Failed to come up with a reason to go to war? Surely that means that diplomacy has succeeded?!?

grrr. bush is really annoying me.

sceptre

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
642 is the wrong resolution,i think your thinking of 687

Bah, yes I was. Ta for the correction.

davelerave

Originally posted by aine
the Brittish ambassador to the un seemed highly upset that anyone would plan to use their democratic right to veto any proposal put foward by themselves or the US, how dare they?!!

hmmmm doesnt look good for post war Iraq!! A state designed by good old George W and his trusty side kick Tony!

well they just said that so they could pin some more blame on the french ,they would have accepeted a majority vote calling for war even with a french veto it would have given blair the legitimacy he needs but next best option is 1441 which they have interpreted to justify wareven if that wasn't the spirit of the resolution
i don't think UN officials can be expected to pronounce iraq in breach of resolutions as of course this would have been seized upon immediately by the 'allies' hans blix has avoided this and let the us make their own case even if iraq has been dragging it's feet

Clintons Cat

Robin Cook has resigned from the cabinet.
That should give the opposition in the house of commons some much needed intelligence and a bit of personality.

Wonder if Clare Short will follow suit,she has been threatening to resign for some time now?I doubt anyone will notice her loss any way as development minister.

ykt0di9url7bc3

I can only hope for a short war!

good luck to all involved!

davelerave

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
Robin Cook has resigned from the cabinet.
That should give the opposition in the house of commons some much needed intelligence and a bit of personality.

Wonder if Clare Short will follow suit,she has been threatening to resign for some time now?I doubt anyone will notice her loss any way as development minister.

she's spposed to be stayin he's a greaseball

Éomer of Rohan

Is this blatant disregard for the UN not the final straw over that damn warmonger Bush? Finally we have the proof that neither the UK nor the US is interested in Human Rights for the Iraqi people - Iraq was disarming her Al Samoud II missiles; is this not enough? Is it not time therefore that we ignored the RIght Wing dross of the Sun and Mr Blair and Mr Bush and saw clearly that this is about oil, about distracting people from internal affairs and about the New American Century??

shotamoose

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
i think that they dont actually need a second resolution under terms of previous resolution.

But don't all those previous resolutions envisage the Security Council reconvening to consider their actions? I.e a country being in breach of the terms of one resolution is not in itself a trigger or basis for war.

Originally posted by LennoxchipsAll I hear in the news is that "diplomacy has failed". Failed to do what? Failed to come up with a reason to go to war? Surely that means that diplomacy has succeeded?!?

Quite right. The United Nations has never been more relevant. Its the US and UK who have made fools of themselves. They (and Spain) have conspicuously failed to convince even a so-called 'moral majority' on the security council to back their resolution. Remember that they said they would put it to a vote if they thought that only France would 'unreasonably' veto it: now all of a sudden they've withdrawn it, giving the reason that big bad France, alone in the world, would block it.

Rubbish. As far as I can see, the countries who actually support the Bush/Blair policy can be counted in single figures. International opinion is overwhelmingly against it. Having made no attempt whatsoever to accomodate the reasonable demands of other countries - and of the weapons inspectors themselves - they have shown their utter contempt for the UN, for diplomacy, for global opinion and ultimately for human life.

And guess who is expected to pick up the pieces when the Forces of Freedom have 'liberated' seven shades of sh** out of Iraq? Why, the 'irrelevant' United Nations. Funny that.

Originally posted by Clintons Cat Wonder if Clare Short will follow suit,she has been threatening to resign for some time now?I doubt anyone will notice her loss any way as development minister.

She's done a very good job imho.

Éomer of Rohan

Quite right. The United Nations has never been more relevant. Its the US and UK who have made fools of themselves. They (and Spain) have conspicuously failed to convince even a so-called 'moral majority' on the security council to back their resolution

Spain's so called moral position can be summed up by Blair's treachery to the British people over Gibraltar.

Blair and Bush have taken an entirely predictable stance; if they claim to be operating under 1441 then they maintain a veneer of legality claiming that Saddam violated it and so on with the argument that...

a country being in breach of the terms of one resolution is not in itself a trigger or basis for war.

being a highly disputed point (though one I agree with). If they went for the second resolution and either France, Russia or China vetoed it then that semblance is gone and passes to the anti-war or 'not unless we have proof' groups. The real worry now is how often will America override the UN - I think everyone should agree that this dismissal of the UN out of hand is unforgiveable on the part of the US and truly indicative of the dictatorial and unilateral nature of US military might.

Lennoxschips

This was in the Bush speech, directed to the Iraqi people:

"don't set fire to your oilwells"

Glad to know what Bush considers important.

Clintons Cat

But don't all those previous resolutions envisage the Security Council reconvening to consider their actions? I.e a country being in breach of the terms of one resolution is not in itself a trigger or basis for war.

Dont know,seeems plausible to me afaik there has never been a situation like this before.

Article 34 of resolution 687 would seem to support the veiw that the "alliance of the willing" have carte blanche to resume Gulf war one provided Sadamn was proved to be in material breach of resolution 687 in which case resolution 1441 is not required for a resumption of hostillities.

Really there is only one way to resolve this and it is to reconvene the Security Council and take a vote on it.

One wonders if Will France take the Initative ?

Éomer of Rohan

No France wouldn't - she is playing the reactionary at present by threatening to block the USA had they tried for a second resolution and a mandate for war. Besides, remember the US have a permanent seat as well - means they can veto what they want; this should be put to the General Assembly under the Auspices of the UNC for Human Rights.

mike65

It seems to me the whole Secuity Council set-up is fundamentally flawed, maybe after the Iraq business blows over it'll be time to have a hard look at the way the UN handles geo-policits.

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

It seems to me the whole Secuity Council set-up is fundamentally flawed, maybe after the Iraq business blows over it'll be time to have a hard look at the way the UN handles geo-politics.

Absolutely.

No permanent members or ALL permanent members. If there is a rotation of 15 then nations relevent to the discussion are invited to give briefings as so on as they are now.

No veto.

Every country is alotted seats according to it's population; proportional representation.