January 29, 2003
PART OF THE WAY, WITH JFK:
War Now Drives the Presidency (Ronald Brownstein, January 29, 2003, LA Times)[T]he appearance Monday of chief weapons inspector Hans Blix before the U.N. may have been more of a turning point than Bush's address. In his unexpectedly tough indictment of the Iraqi regime, Blix reframed the case against Iraq into a succinct argument: While Iraq was cooperating with the "process" of inspections, it was continuing to resist the "substance" of disarmament.Bush followed a similar strategy, underscoring the gap between the chemical and biological weapons Iraq had previously acknowledged possessing and those it can prove it has destroyed.
Even before Bush's speech, there was evidence this argument may be subtly strengthening the administration's position in the domestic debate. Though opposition to a near-term invasion of Iraq has been broadening among Democratic officials, Blix's conclusions may be sapping some of its intensity.
Just hours before Bush's address, for instance, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) told a small group of reporters that based on Blix's report, he believed Iraq was now clearly in material breach of the U.N. resolutions demanding disarmament.
Last week, Kerry had accused Bush of a "rush to war" and urged him to give inspections more time and to work harder to build international support for any military action. But on Tuesday, while repeating those arguments, Kerry also said he would be open to a U.N. resolution authorizing an invasion if Iraq did not disarm within 30 days. "That would sound pretty reasonable," he said.
By a "rush" Senator Kerry apparently meant attacking in February instead of March. You'll have to explain to me how Saddam can be in material breach but a new resolution be required. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 29, 2003 8:09 PM
Still 22 mos. out from the big election, and the Kerry is already entangled in his own rhetoric.
That didn't take long.
The more I look at this field, the more I think Lieberman might pull the nomination out. He's the only candidate with an ounce of seriousness.
Posted by: pj at January 29, 2003 10:38 PMWhich would stifle black turnout and potentially turn this into the worst rout since AUH2O.
Posted by: oj at January 29, 2003 11:53 PMPerfect example of what a piece of work Kerry is. Thank god for video so people remember his backflips and contortions
Posted by: AWW at January 29, 2003 11:56 PMAre you being serious? One can certainly dispute the validity of the resolutions, but there is NO doubt that Israel is in material breach of many UN resolutions. That would not justify invasion of Israel by any country or the UN collectively.
I mean, this is so damn obvious -- I don't get your argument or why InstaPundit takes it seriously. Are you saying that invasion is triggered by violating UN resolutions?
Mr. Hauser:
The international community is not in the midst of a war with Israel though. It is in one with Iraq, and he's in violation of the terms that were required for cessation of hostilities. Therefore, the Gulf War will resume shortly.
Mr Hauser:
I am no fan of Israel but the comparison doesn't hold with Iraq.
Behold via the Economist:
">http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1378577
The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven. By imposing sanctions—including military ones—against Iraq but not against Israel, the UN is merely acting in accordance with its own rules.
Now you could argue there's never going to be a Chapter Seven resolution against Israel unless the US forgets to show up at the UN one day, but still Israel isnt in material breach.
Cheap shot, Ali.
The same article you referred to explains precisely why Israel hasn't (yet) merited a Chapter Seven resolution against it.
But keep on hoping. The U.N. has proven itself more and more creative with every passing year (i.e., "continual improvement").
Barry - what was the cheap shot? He made the response Mr. Hauser needed. And if the US dropped out of the UN, wouldn't it turn into a permanent Durban conference?
Posted by: pj at January 30, 2003 7:36 AMI'll look into it more at some point, as I know precious littlke international "law," but Choudhury's response is persuasive.
Incidentally, I don't support the anti-Israel resolutions OR Sharon, but that's purely incidental.
Still, I think the framework of this issue on the right has been disingenuous. There are many possible views of the role of the UN:
1) the UN could be both necessary and sufficient for war; that would be bad as it would grant the five permanent states too much power.
2) the UN's support could be necessary for war, but not sufficient. Many internationally seem to hold this view.
3) UN could be sufficient, but not necessary= seems to be the US right wing view, anfd I think it is structurally flawed for obvious reasons (if they ain't trustworthy enough to be necessary, how can they be sufficient? the world isn't so pacifist that one can construe the UN's support as a pseudo admission agst interest)
4) The UN is relevant to all sorts of realpolitik issues, but largely besides the point; that's my view.
sorry above is a touch rushed.
oj,
The article correctly described the difference between Iraq and Israel (for those with any desire to understand the difference).
However, the remark---that the only thing that has stood between Israel and a Chapter Seven resolution is the US veto---implies that Israel is as deserving of a Chapter Seven as Iraq.
So much for the article....
Mr. Meislin;
I do not think that Israel is deserving at all of a Chapter Seven resolution, but I think that it is quite close to the truth that the only thing preventing it is the US veto. The Durban Conference remark is an excellent example of why that is the case. Mr. Choudhury is simply being realistic. This would have caused me to lose all respect for the UN, had I had any to start with.
Well, in that case, if I "mis-inferred" the remark then I apologize.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at January 30, 2003 1:18 PMThe Israel discourse sorta entirely proves my point: the UN is flawed and you guys don't respect it, so why can you cite to it when it supports you and claim breach of its resolutions (of any variety) constitute a causus belli?
I think as a lefty that the left's multilateralism fixation is silly, and that when the populace parrots it rather substantially -- as they do -- they are merely suggesting that they a) fear only Americans dying and b) only US paying for rebuilding. Which aren't bad points; Saddam's last gasps will all be directed at US civilians, and the mess will be entirely on the US' credit card, as everything is currently playing out.
I still have no clue why we don't just assasinate Saddam while giving discrete heads up to someone evil who will take over the biochem weapons and is unlikely to use them against us.
The Israel discourse sorta entirely proves my point: the UN is flawed and you guys don't respect it, so why can you cite to it when it supports you and claim breach of its resolutions (of any variety) constitute a causus belli?
I think as a lefty that the left's multilateralism fixation is silly, and that when the populace parrots it rather substantially -- as they do -- they are merely suggesting that they a) fear only Americans dying and b) only US paying for rebuilding. Which aren't bad points; Saddam's last gasps will all be directed at US civilians, and the mess will be entirely on the US' credit card, as everything is currently playing out.
I still have no clue why we don't just assasinate Saddam while giving discrete heads up to someone evil who will take over the biochem weapons and is unlikely to use them against us.