POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
Boston Globe: US invasion of Iraq would violate UN-run DMZ
By Joe Lauria in New York
If United States ground troops invade Iraq from Kuwait they will violate a UN-run demilitarized zone manned by 1,000 peacekeepers whose mandate is to deter an incursion from either side of the border.
Secretary General Kofi Annan would also be required to report the invasion as a violation of the DMZ to the Security Council.
Before military action, the peacekeepers' status would have to be resolved and France, Russia or China could veto a withdrawal in a bid to prevent war..
The three veto-wielding Security Council members want to slow Washington's drive to conflict with Iraq. A council majority has joined them in arguing that weapons inspections should continue as long as progress continues in disarming Baghdad.
While French President Jacques Chirac says France would veto a war resolution, President Bush says that without UN support, the U.S. will still invade Iraq with its own coalition.
But maintaining the peacekeepers' presence could throw one more diplomatic hurdle in the way of a U.S.-led war that lacks UN backing.
"It wouldn't surprise me at all if the French and other permanent members use that to block an invasion from Kuwait," said the Cato Institute's Director of Foreign Policy Studies, Christopher Preble. "I think France will do everything in its power, and their options are limited, to stop this war from moving forward."
There are currently 80,000 U.S. troops and xx British soldiers deployed on the Kuwait side of the DMZ, poised to invade Iraq through the zone. Since Turkey continues to hold up approval of a U.S. ground invasion from the north through its territory, the southern front is becoming even more vital to the Pentagon's strategy.
Asked whether the peacekeepers' presence was a concern for military planners, Marine Major Brad Lowell, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command in Tampa, said, "That question should be answered by the UN in regard to their troops there."
"I don't want to speak for their troops, they wouldn't talk about Central Command troops," Lowell said in a phone interview. "Obviously they are there for a reason but again that is a mission that the UN should respond to."
A European official said because he has learned the fate of the DMZ and the UN peacekeepers had not been discussed at the French foreign ministry in Paris, he could not say precisely what France's position would be. .
"It's a very interesting idea," said the diplomat. But he questioned whether keeping the UN troops in the DMZ would have any effect. "It wouldn't stop the war," he said.
The official's own view was that the peacekeepers' safety would probably come first if war were imminent, and that no country on the council would likely block their evacuation.
But the diplomat added that an invasion would be a definite violation of the DMZ. "This will be a legal problem, a political problem and also a military problem for the U.S.," he said.
A violation of the DMZ could be viewed seriously by a number of countries, a UN official warned.
A central reason the U.S. has given for going to war is that Iraq is in violation of Security Council resolutions. Invading through the DMZ would also be a violation of a council resolution the U.S. voted for.
"There could be a political cost to pay for the United States," said one UN official.
Greg Sullivan, spokesman with the Near Eastern Affairs bureau at the State Department said, "I don't see any potential legal problems there."
By Joe Lauria in New York
If United States ground troops invade Iraq from Kuwait they will violate a UN-run demilitarized zone manned by 1,000 peacekeepers whose mandate is to deter an incursion from either side of the border.
Secretary General Kofi Annan would also be required to report the invasion as a violation of the DMZ to the Security Council.
Before military action, the peacekeepers' status would have to be resolved and France, Russia or China could veto a withdrawal in a bid to prevent war..
The three veto-wielding Security Council members want to slow Washington's drive to conflict with Iraq. A council majority has joined them in arguing that weapons inspections should continue as long as progress continues in disarming Baghdad.
While French President Jacques Chirac says France would veto a war resolution, President Bush says that without UN support, the U.S. will still invade Iraq with its own coalition.
But maintaining the peacekeepers' presence could throw one more diplomatic hurdle in the way of a U.S.-led war that lacks UN backing.
"It wouldn't surprise me at all if the French and other permanent members use that to block an invasion from Kuwait," said the Cato Institute's Director of Foreign Policy Studies, Christopher Preble. "I think France will do everything in its power, and their options are limited, to stop this war from moving forward."
There are currently 80,000 U.S. troops and xx British soldiers deployed on the Kuwait side of the DMZ, poised to invade Iraq through the zone. Since Turkey continues to hold up approval of a U.S. ground invasion from the north through its territory, the southern front is becoming even more vital to the Pentagon's strategy.
Asked whether the peacekeepers' presence was a concern for military planners, Marine Major Brad Lowell, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command in Tampa, said, "That question should be answered by the UN in regard to their troops there."
"I don't want to speak for their troops, they wouldn't talk about Central Command troops," Lowell said in a phone interview. "Obviously they are there for a reason but again that is a mission that the UN should respond to."
A European official said because he has learned the fate of the DMZ and the UN peacekeepers had not been discussed at the French foreign ministry in Paris, he could not say precisely what France's position would be. .
"It's a very interesting idea," said the diplomat. But he questioned whether keeping the UN troops in the DMZ would have any effect. "It wouldn't stop the war," he said.
The official's own view was that the peacekeepers' safety would probably come first if war were imminent, and that no country on the council would likely block their evacuation.
But the diplomat added that an invasion would be a definite violation of the DMZ. "This will be a legal problem, a political problem and also a military problem for the U.S.," he said.
A violation of the DMZ could be viewed seriously by a number of countries, a UN official warned.
A central reason the U.S. has given for going to war is that Iraq is in violation of Security Council resolutions. Invading through the DMZ would also be a violation of a council resolution the U.S. voted for.
"There could be a political cost to pay for the United States," said one UN official.
Greg Sullivan, spokesman with the Near Eastern Affairs bureau at the State Department said, "I don't see any potential legal problems there."
continued -
Sullivan said the "justification" of a U.S. incursion into the DMZ "would be that Iraq has failed to live up to its obligations. UNIKOM was not established between two equals. This DMZ was created as a buffer for Kuwait because they had suffered the brutality of Iraq," and not the other way around.
He added: "If Iraq is not abiding by its obligations for the past 13 years and other methods need to be taken to ensure that Iraq does not remain a threat, we reserve the right to take those steps."
The Security Council created the DMZ and the peacekeeping force, known as UNIKOM, in the April 3, 1991 Gulf War ceasefire resolution that was supported by the United States. The resolution also established weapons inspections. Today 193 military observers and 912 troops from 32 countries, including the U.S., France, Russia and China, patrol the zone.
The resolution says UNIKOM's mandate is to "deter violations" of the DMZ through "its presence and surveillance" and "to observe any hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the territory of one state against the other." The DMZ extends five kilometers into Kuwait and ten kilometers into Iraq.
A later resolution passed in February 1993 gives the peacekeepers the right to use "all necessary measures" to repel an incursion, meaning force could be used.
According to the ceasefire resolution, Secretary General Kofi Annan could potentially be put in an awkward position as he is charged with reporting "immediately" to the Security Council "if there are serious violations of the zone or potential threats to peace."
A UN official said: "It is a speculative line of questioning and there isn't much we can say. In the past, when there have been violations the Secretary General has reported it to the council."
The official admitted that Annan would be put in a difficult position by having to report a U.S.-led invasion to the Security Council as a violation of the DMZ.
"Hopefully they (UNIKOM) can do their job and at least report such a violation to the secretary general," said Iraq's UN ambassador Mohammed Aldouri in an interview. "It would be a violation, but going to war is itself a violation of the UN charter."
UNIKOM has already reported numerous incursions over the years to the secretary general, including hundreds of violations of the DMZ's airspace by "unidentified" aircraft.
"The planes fly too high to be positively identified by the observers but you can hazard a guess whose planes they are," said one UN official, referring to the British and U.S. no-fly zone in the south of Iraq.
The latest UN report on UNIKOM however does identify U.S. F-15, F-16 and A-10 aircraft as having violated the zone.
While UNIKOM can be terminated only by a vote of the Security Council, its force commander, Polish Major-General Franciszek Gagor, could ask UN headquarters to evacuate his troops if they are in imminent danger, according to UN officials.
Evacuation would not require a Security Council vote and would keep the DMZ legally in place. But UN officials say that any power on the council could exert political influence on a decision to evacuate.
"If there is a unilateral action by the U.S. ⦠we will know at least a day before, so the force commander could take action ⦠but this would not be consistent with UN Security Council resolutions," said the European diplomat.
The UN report says that since "UNIKOM is operating in an uncertain enviornment, due to political and military developments in the region" it is "making contingency arrangements for any eventuality."
Major Lowell agreed that the U.S. would have to notify the secretary general just before an imminent attack to facilitate the evacuation. The same notification would be needed to pull out the weapons inspectors and a UN civilian staff of 650 working in Iraq on the oil-for-food programme. About 350 staff have voluntarily left in the past two weeks.
The evacuation of UN civilians and the peacekeepers would also tip off the Iraqis to the invasion, according to UN officials.
Sullivan said the "justification" of a U.S. incursion into the DMZ "would be that Iraq has failed to live up to its obligations. UNIKOM was not established between two equals. This DMZ was created as a buffer for Kuwait because they had suffered the brutality of Iraq," and not the other way around.
He added: "If Iraq is not abiding by its obligations for the past 13 years and other methods need to be taken to ensure that Iraq does not remain a threat, we reserve the right to take those steps."
The Security Council created the DMZ and the peacekeeping force, known as UNIKOM, in the April 3, 1991 Gulf War ceasefire resolution that was supported by the United States. The resolution also established weapons inspections. Today 193 military observers and 912 troops from 32 countries, including the U.S., France, Russia and China, patrol the zone.
The resolution says UNIKOM's mandate is to "deter violations" of the DMZ through "its presence and surveillance" and "to observe any hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the territory of one state against the other." The DMZ extends five kilometers into Kuwait and ten kilometers into Iraq.
A later resolution passed in February 1993 gives the peacekeepers the right to use "all necessary measures" to repel an incursion, meaning force could be used.
According to the ceasefire resolution, Secretary General Kofi Annan could potentially be put in an awkward position as he is charged with reporting "immediately" to the Security Council "if there are serious violations of the zone or potential threats to peace."
A UN official said: "It is a speculative line of questioning and there isn't much we can say. In the past, when there have been violations the Secretary General has reported it to the council."
The official admitted that Annan would be put in a difficult position by having to report a U.S.-led invasion to the Security Council as a violation of the DMZ.
"Hopefully they (UNIKOM) can do their job and at least report such a violation to the secretary general," said Iraq's UN ambassador Mohammed Aldouri in an interview. "It would be a violation, but going to war is itself a violation of the UN charter."
UNIKOM has already reported numerous incursions over the years to the secretary general, including hundreds of violations of the DMZ's airspace by "unidentified" aircraft.
"The planes fly too high to be positively identified by the observers but you can hazard a guess whose planes they are," said one UN official, referring to the British and U.S. no-fly zone in the south of Iraq.
The latest UN report on UNIKOM however does identify U.S. F-15, F-16 and A-10 aircraft as having violated the zone.
While UNIKOM can be terminated only by a vote of the Security Council, its force commander, Polish Major-General Franciszek Gagor, could ask UN headquarters to evacuate his troops if they are in imminent danger, according to UN officials.
Evacuation would not require a Security Council vote and would keep the DMZ legally in place. But UN officials say that any power on the council could exert political influence on a decision to evacuate.
"If there is a unilateral action by the U.S. ⦠we will know at least a day before, so the force commander could take action ⦠but this would not be consistent with UN Security Council resolutions," said the European diplomat.
The UN report says that since "UNIKOM is operating in an uncertain enviornment, due to political and military developments in the region" it is "making contingency arrangements for any eventuality."
Major Lowell agreed that the U.S. would have to notify the secretary general just before an imminent attack to facilitate the evacuation. The same notification would be needed to pull out the weapons inspectors and a UN civilian staff of 650 working in Iraq on the oil-for-food programme. About 350 staff have voluntarily left in the past two weeks.
The evacuation of UN civilians and the peacekeepers would also tip off the Iraqis to the invasion, according to UN officials.
The UN is a useless DEBATING SOCIETY.
Don't waste the huge Posts on the UN - nobody is going to read it.
The UN will not Survive this Conflict as a meaningfull Entity.
If the United States does not respect or support the UN it will wither on the vine and die.
The United States should form another World Organization.
And only allow Strong Democratic Non-Socialist Governments to join.
Exclude China, Russia, France and Germany.
Don't waste the huge Posts on the UN - nobody is going to read it.
The UN will not Survive this Conflict as a meaningfull Entity.
If the United States does not respect or support the UN it will wither on the vine and die.
The United States should form another World Organization.
And only allow Strong Democratic Non-Socialist Governments to join.
Exclude China, Russia, France and Germany.
agin1415:`The United States should form another World Organization. And only allow Strong Democratic Non-Socialist Governments to join. Exclude China, Russia, France and Germany.´
how would this `World Organization´look like: Strong Democratic Non-Socialist Governments like USA, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kirghistan, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria etc. - with the British Socialist Government excluded ?
besides: what could possibly be the point for the USA to form another `World Organization´that only allows strong Democratic Governments - which would by its very nature exclude the Republican US Government even from the inauguration ceremony ?
how would this `World Organization´look like: Strong Democratic Non-Socialist Governments like USA, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kirghistan, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria etc. - with the British Socialist Government excluded ?
besides: what could possibly be the point for the USA to form another `World Organization´that only allows strong Democratic Governments - which would by its very nature exclude the Republican US Government even from the inauguration ceremony ?
The majority of an entire Muslim country in favor of US war against Iraq:
Iranians Eager for Hussein to Be Ousted
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-fg-streets23feb23,1,1639872.story
"TEHRAN -- Iran would seem to be an unlikely corner of the Middle East to find support for Washington's plans to unseat Saddam Hussein. But despite decades of poor relations with the U.S. and their pique at being labeled part of an "axis of evil," most Iranians are eager to see the Iraqi dictator's demise."
"'I know that people in Iraq, in Iraqi Kurdistan, must be happy about this,' graduate student Farideh Tavakoli said. 'They must be counting the seconds until they're free of this Hitler.' "
Iranians Eager for Hussein to Be Ousted
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-fg-streets23feb23,1,1639872.story
"TEHRAN -- Iran would seem to be an unlikely corner of the Middle East to find support for Washington's plans to unseat Saddam Hussein. But despite decades of poor relations with the U.S. and their pique at being labeled part of an "axis of evil," most Iranians are eager to see the Iraqi dictator's demise."
"'I know that people in Iraq, in Iraqi Kurdistan, must be happy about this,' graduate student Farideh Tavakoli said. 'They must be counting the seconds until they're free of this Hitler.' "
Inspectors in Iran Examine Machines to Enrich Uranium
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 â International inspectors visiting Iran this week were shown a network of sophisticated machinery to enrich uranium, spurring concerns that Iran is making headway in its suspected program to develop nuclear weapons, Western officials and international diplomats said today.
The site in question is near the city of Natanz and was visited on Friday by Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who went to Iran to assess the status of its nuclear program. It was the first time that inspectors had visited the installation.
During the visit to the Natanz site, inspectors found that it included a small network of centrifuges for enriching uranium. The inspectors also learned that Iran had components to make a significant number of additional centrifuges.
American officials believe Natanz is part of a long suspected nuclear weapons program, an Iranian project that American intelligence believes has benefited from Pakistani assistance and that is far more advanced than the effort by Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/international/23IRAN.html
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 â International inspectors visiting Iran this week were shown a network of sophisticated machinery to enrich uranium, spurring concerns that Iran is making headway in its suspected program to develop nuclear weapons, Western officials and international diplomats said today.
The site in question is near the city of Natanz and was visited on Friday by Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who went to Iran to assess the status of its nuclear program. It was the first time that inspectors had visited the installation.
During the visit to the Natanz site, inspectors found that it included a small network of centrifuges for enriching uranium. The inspectors also learned that Iran had components to make a significant number of additional centrifuges.
American officials believe Natanz is part of a long suspected nuclear weapons program, an Iranian project that American intelligence believes has benefited from Pakistani assistance and that is far more advanced than the effort by Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/international/23IRAN.html
"Others, who despair of the clerical regime's capacity for reform, even hope that after Iraq, the United States will take on Iran.
When newspaper headlines suggest that Washington's resolve may be wavering, anxiety sets in.
'Are they changing their mind?' Goli Afshar, a 23-year-old art student, asked as she alternately tightened and loosened her grip on a coffee mug at a cafe on Gandhi Street. 'Can they hurry up with Iraq already, so they can get on with attacking us?'"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...1,1639872.story
Turkey now wants 54 billion, US is lowballing it only willing to cough up 44 billion.
excerpt
"His confidence came despite an unresolved stand-off with Turkey which is demanding $54 billion in US aid before allowing the Americans to open a second front against Iraq from its soil.
The Americans are only prepared to offer $44 billion and the White House threatened yesterday the troops would be deployed from elsewhere should the issue remain unresolved."
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6021120%5E401,00.html
Hey jerkoffs, can we have a tiny fraction of that money to bail out state and local governments? help the economy? 10 mill to investigate your crimes?
We want to place 40,000 troops in Turkey for the Iraqi Invasion. So Turkey wants $1.35 million per soldier while we are offering $1.1 million.
We must be contemplating some great crime for us to offer such extravagant bribery
What the friggin f%$k are you doin with my tax dollars
excerpt
"His confidence came despite an unresolved stand-off with Turkey which is demanding $54 billion in US aid before allowing the Americans to open a second front against Iraq from its soil.
The Americans are only prepared to offer $44 billion and the White House threatened yesterday the troops would be deployed from elsewhere should the issue remain unresolved."
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6021120%5E401,00.html
Hey jerkoffs, can we have a tiny fraction of that money to bail out state and local governments? help the economy? 10 mill to investigate your crimes?
We want to place 40,000 troops in Turkey for the Iraqi Invasion. So Turkey wants $1.35 million per soldier while we are offering $1.1 million.
We must be contemplating some great crime for us to offer such extravagant bribery
What the friggin f%$k are you doin with my tax dollars
Well said, MSFE! This suggestion by agin1415 is just one of those kneejerk thingies, which unfortunately are widely seen as "typical Americna".
It smacks of the so-called "world series"... Yeah right, the whole world is there, except of course those countries which are not among the "strong, democratic Non-socialist" nations such as China, Russia, France and Germany. Looking forward to welcoming the national teams from GUAM (Georgia, Uzebkistan, Azerbeyjan and Moldavia)...
Interestingly, France's incumbent president Chirac is ideologically closer to GWB than his English neighbour Blair: Chirac is a Gaullist who definitely cannot be accused of any socialist tendencies. He won the last elections against his socialist counterpart Lionel Jospin by a landslide victory, banking by the way strongly on the support of the extreme right wingers around M. Le Pen. Those rather unappetizing types would be very happy to volunteer in an American kind of "foreign legion" to do something about Arabs, whom they consider a threat to themselves and the country.
By contrast, the British Labour Party has a very long history of socialist activities, especially the present Foreign Minister, the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw MP (Blackburn), who used to be known as "Red Jack".
Why is it that there are these louts in the US who, without any knowledge of what is going on in the world, attempt to lecture everybody on how things ought to be done? I guess it has something to do with freedom of speech and the fact that the same percentage of idiots that is there around the world, gets more airtime in the US. Call it the price for democracy, if you will.