Posted by andreas from p3EE3C351.dip.t-dialin.net (62.227.195.81) on Thursday, October 03, 2002 at 7:53AM :
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020
http://www.accuracy.org
ipa@accuracy.org
U.S. Demanding an "Occupation Arrangement"?
Wednesday, October 2, 2002
Interviews Available on Iraq:
U.S. Demanding an 'Occupation Arrangement'?
JAMES PAUL, james.paul@globalpolicy.org, http://www.globalpolicy.org,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irqindx.htm
Executive director of Global Policy Forum and author of several recent
papers on Iraq, Paul said today: "The U.S./U.K. draft of a proposed U.N.
Security Council resolution, leaked to The New York Times [published in the
Oct. 2 edition], says that 'Iraq shall provide ... immediate, unconditional
and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities,...' and 'Any
permanent member of the Security Council may request to be represented on
any inspection team with the same right and protections....' This is one of
several booby traps in the text to make sure that the Iraqis don't accept
it. The idea is that the U.S. and the U.K. can put their people on the team
and can be present anywhere, anytime in Iraq. When the Security Council
created the new inspection regime, UNMOVIC [U.N. Monitoring, Verification,
and Inspection Commission], it was seen as intended to be free of the taint
of espionage and other covert operations, primarily by the U.S., that
destroyed the credibility of UNSCOM. This resolution totally undermines
that. The text also says: 'Teams shall be accompanied at the bases by
sufficient U.N. security forces,... shall have the right to declare for the
purposes of this resolution no-fly/no-drive zones, exclusion zones, and/or
ground- and air-transit corridors, which shall be enforced by U.N. security
forces or by members of the Council;...' What they are talking about is an
occupation arrangement, similar to demands made at Rambouillet on
Yugoslavia. Since the government of Iraq will not accept that, Iraqi
rejection will be used as a pretext for war. The resolution further says
that if Iraq does not comply, member states can use 'all necessary means'
-- a green light for the use of force."
JOHN QUIGLEY, quigley.2@osu.edu,
http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/law/quigley2.htm
Professor of international law at Ohio State University, Quigley said
today: "The U.S. should not be seeking to disrupt an agreement between the
U.N. and Iraq on how this should be resolved.... The U.S./U.K. resolution
says that 'failure by Iraq at any time to comply and cooperate fully in
accordance with the provisions laid out in this resolution, shall
constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and that such
breach authorizes member states to use all necessary means...' It's saying
that any violation, even an insignificant or accidental one, could be used
as a pretext for invasion. It also says that member states can make such
determination. You should have some mechanism, such as further
consideration by the Security Council. This is really just a blank check
for an armed attack on Iraq."
FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle@law.uiuc.edu,
http://www.will.uiuc.edu/WILL_Contents/AM_Contents/AM_mcchesney.htm
Professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of
Law, Boyle said today: "The resolution is just a pretext for war. No way
Iraq, or any other state, could accept such a resolution.... The U.S.
government is [currently] violating the U.N. Charter ... by using military
force to allegedly 'police' the illegal 'no-fly' zones..."
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
-- andreas
-- signature .