The only sure way to Baghdad
TPSIPOL: RED 10/03/2003 DEMOCRATIC
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
How To Build A Bow Rack
THE ONLY SAFE WAY TO BAGHDAD
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion/message/15204
Ambassador Oswaldo De Rivero in this article shows the steps taken so far by the United States and its fight against Saddam Huseein, the role of the Security Council of the United Nations. An analysis of the importance of reaching a real commitment to disarmament. The Baghdad government, according to De Rivero is taking positive steps to disarm, there is an intention to comply with resolution 1441. He also mentioned that yet must "be realistic diplomacy without force does not work and instead of the 5 great powers divided between presentations of war or peace, between diplomacy and armed attack, could find a compromise formula. In this crisis plant is fulfilling the role that the Security Council, said: "If the five permanent members with veto a compromise fail to disarm Saddam Hussein, the Security Council and the United Nations will become a peace mechanism irrelevant. "
This is an exclusive publication for Democratic Network.
Dr. Humberto Ramos, Editor
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------
THE ONLY WAY TO SECURE BAGHDAD
(*) Oswaldo de Rivero
New York .- The Bush administration has taken important steps to exercise the use of military force against Iraq. First has appealed to the U.S. Congress and had great support, the second has made an apparent concession, the United Nations did not acknowledge that their goal is "regime change in Baghdad" and only choose the "disarmament of Iraq" and finally resorted the Security Council to have legal authorization pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter to use force. Following this logic
U.S. diplomat managed to obtain approval in November unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 which calls for cooperation broadly active, immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences" language for the United States allows the automatic use of force against Iraq. The United States considered that they did not need another resolution that was sufficient if Iraq was failing, but their British allies, diplomats said, to save the critical internal political situation Tony Blair persuaded to present a second resolution. This second decision and concludes that Iraq has failed to disarm and the British themselves have also added a disarmament deadline until March 17 next.
The situation is complicated because the ambiguous and certainly not to positive reports of the inspectors Blix and ElBaradei on February the Security Council have now evolved to the Council showing that there is much more cooperation from Baghdad and positive steps to disarmament destruction of 40 Al Samoud missiles, to interview scientists without the presence of officers of Saddam, with flying spy planes unrestricted United Nations and with almost zero evidence of the resurrection of the Iraqi military nuclear industry. In view of this the inspectors, Blix and El Baradei asked, not days but a few months to finish their inspections, while the resolution of the United States, amended by Great Britain calls for days, it's over on 17 March.
Given this new information from the Inspectors, the permanent members of the Security Council were divided. Further. France, Russia and China have veto countries argue that there is no rush to war and that the inspections are going and must continue, giving the inspectors the time they need. France, the most emphatic with the eloquence of his Foreign Minister Villepin has threatened to veto even in this circumstance, a decision that involves the use of force.
The simple truth is that Saddam Hussein would never have taken positive steps to disarmament, but had been A massive deployment of U.S. and British forces on their borders. Be realistic diplomacy without force does not work and instead of the 5 great powers divided between presentations of war or peace, between diplomacy and armed attack, could find a compromise formula.
This formula must be combined with diplomatic pressure, military pressure. United States, France, Britain, Russia and China should agree on a deadline reasonable consultation with the inspectors to complete the inspections and from which the Council decides if Baghdad complied with resolution 1441. Within this commitment, France, Russia and China should not only support the solution peaceful and reinforce the inspections, but also diplomatic and military pressure to understand that Saddam must disarm immediately and unconditionally and to avoid war.
No compromise in the Security Council, three things can happen. The United States can win the support pressures of 9 votes and pass the resolution to legally use force but with the abstention of France, Germany, Russia and China and other countries, its position would undoubtedly be legal but that serious will have little legitimacy in the Muslim world and in many other countries. Secondly, it may be through the United States, despite its resolution 9 votes, suffer the veto of France and possibly Russia and not pass. Finally, the worst that can happen to this veto, the United States and Britain to attack Iraq without Security Council approval. In all these situations the big loser, no doubt, the United Nations will be converted into a sort of League of Nations.
major news media in the United States and Britain, as the New York Times and the Financial Times saying that a unilateral invasion of Iraq by the United States, supported only by Great Britain without the consent of the Council will also unexpected consequences in the Arab and Muslim countries. Could produce a destabilization move from Morocco, through the Persian Gulf to Central Asia and also give rise to radical Islamic sectors present a preemptive, unilateral attack on Iraq as anti-Islamic crusade to inaugurate a new season of terrorism and global sociopolitical and economic instability.
Nobody in the United Nations, nor the Arabs themselves disagree on a bellicose tyrant like Saddam Hussein who did not hesitate to physically destroy all his opponents, gassing thousands of Kurds, attacking Iran, invading Kuwait have weapons in their hands of mass destruction. The problem is how to disarm and how long. If the five permanent members with veto power fail a commitment to disarm Saddam Hussein, the Security Council and the United Nations will become a peace mechanism irrelevant. If you can not disarm a dictator of a country in tatters by the economic sanctions, how can solve more complex problems like the Middle East, North Korea or the problem of a nuclear Iran, let alone the challenges of global terrorism rampant .
The best way to disarm Baghdad is a compromise between the permanent members of Security Council would be the worst way to distinguish between them to close the Security Council chamber and open the Pandora's Box of pre-emptive wars. Imagine a preventive nuclear war between Pakistan and India! It is said that all roads lead to Rome, but in Baghdad, there is only one right way: A commitment to the Security Council of the United Nations.
(*) Oswaldo de Rivero
New York.
March 2002 Ambassador of Peru to the UN.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment