Ben Hammersley found this article at Foreign Policy in Focus about UN Security Council Resolutions that aren't being enforced and don't deal with Iraq. (This particular list of resolutions goes back to 1968, and includes many resolutions that simply restate and reiterate previous security council resolutions that have been ignored.) This is to call into question Bush's motives of starting war with Iraq simply because it is violating UN Security Council resoutions.
Here is a summary of 91 unenforced resolutions that don't deal with Iraq:
4 Armenia 6 Croatia 1 India, Pakistan 4 Indonesia 31 Israel 18 Morocco 1 Russia 3 Sudan 13 Turkey 10 Turkey/CyprusThe common threads: urges for Israel to live peacefully with its Arab neighbors (i.e. return East Jerusalem, stop deporting Palestinians, deal with the Arab territories, etc.), Morocco to deal with the Western Sahara, Turkey and Cyprus to figure out what to do with Cyprus, and Croats to get along with Serbs living in Croatia.
This list is compiled by FPIF, and it's unclear to me from reading this list what their agenda might be (is this list complete? correct? what constitutes UN Security Council Resolutions that are "being ignored"? What about resolutions before 1968?). This list is also somewhat specious, since it lists certain UN Security Council resolutions inaccurately, like these:
694 (1991) MoroccoNevertheless, I do see their point. It would be interesting to review the 1400+ UN Security Council resolutions and see which ones are being ignored, including the ones dealing with Iraq.
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."716 (1991) Morocco
Reaffirms previous resolutions on Cyprus.725 (1991) Morocco
"Calls upon the two parties to cooperate fully in the settlement plan."
Curious, they don't list any resolution that China is in breach of. I'm told that until the early 1950's, the UN regonised Taiwan ("The Republic of China") as the legitimate Chinese government, and so Taiwanese diplomats were in the security council, with the veto. Hence during those times the security council did pass resolutions critical of the Chinese invasion (or re-unification, depending on your viewpoint) of Tibet.
Therefore, a strictly pedantic list of UN resolutions not being enforced ought to include some that are critical of the situation in Tibet
Re:Nothing on Tibet?
ziggy on 2002-10-07T16:57:01
Like I said, the list provided by FPIF is rather suspect on a number of counts, including this one. At the bottom of the list, there are a series of criteria used for determining whether a specific resolution should be included in this list; resolutions that are about resolved issues are not no the list, with no specific set of criteria for determining (or even just listing) which international issues are deemed "resolved".Also, FPIF didn't include any vague and non-specific condemnations in the list, just UN resolutions by the security council that identified and called for the resolution of a grevious situation.
Re:Nothing on Tibet?
pudge on 2002-10-09T18:51:51
The most suspect thing of it all is that it -- well, in your interpretation, I didn't look at it myself -- is based on a flawed premise, that Bush is trying to go to war with Iraq "simply because it is violating UN Security Council resoutions."
Even if the UN resolutions were the only issue, it is the specific nature of the resolutions which make Iraq unique: they have had weapons of mass destruction in the past, and never allowed the UN to finish the process of diasrming them. That is more significant to the peace of the world than issues about settlements and localized dipsutes.
And let's be clear: the very fact that the weapons inspections were never allowed to be completed is reason enough for the UN to take military action against Iraq, because the UN has every right to assume that without complete, unfettered, access, that Iraq is hiding illegal weapons from the inspectors, which is a de facto hostile act against the region.
Even Scott Ritter, the former UN inspector who has appeared numerous times over the past few months blasting Bush and the US for its policies toward Iraq, went to Iraq and told the government that if Iraq blew these inspections, they can expect a military response, and that it would be their fault.
So if the UN resolution is the "only" issue, then it certainly is a sufficient one, because of the nature of it.
Re:Nothing on Tibet?
ziggy on 2002-10-09T19:54:53
That's a fair assessment.The most suspect thing of it all is that it -- well, in your interpretation, I didn't look at it myself -- is based on a flawed premise, that Bush is trying to go to war with Iraq "simply because it is violating UN Security Council resoutions."There was a subtle change in Anti-Iraq policy that started coming out a few weeks ago that reprioritized non-compliance with UN resolutions (with the possiblity of attack as a lingering, secondary issue). My comments are about the change in strategy to convince Congress and the public into going to war.
At this point, military action (er, war) is all but inevitable and justified. The only questions that remain are how the political issues will play out before the winter, when US forces can start a campaign.
Re:Nothing on Tibet?
pudge on 2002-10-09T20:46:08
I don't think U.S. policy has changed, though certainly how it is expressed has changed. Yes, it is all politics. I don't think the U.S. policy on Iraq has changed at all since this whole thing began many months ago.Re:Nothing on Tibet?
ziggy on 2002-10-09T21:03:30
What this administration desperately needs is a good orator and a consistent message. There was no wiggle room around «We will put a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth by the end of this decade» or «Trust, but verify.»certainly how it is expressed has changed.
