What UN Resolution 1441 Actually Says

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by 352klr, Mar 10, 2003.

  1. 352klr

    352klr Member+

    Jan 29, 2001
    The Burgh of Edin
    In many threads the question of what 1441 says and entitles us to do has been debated. Many posters confessed to not knowing what the actual wording of the document was as well as what constitutes Iraq being in "material breach." Here's a link to it as well as a few key excerpts of it below. http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

    Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

    1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

    2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
    4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
    11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;


    So, after reading the resolution, and based upon the new developments involving the drone and the South African modeled cluster bomb(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5961-2003Mar10.html), is Iraq in violation of 1441?
     
  2. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    Why'd you leave out paragraph 12?
     
  3. 352klr

    352klr Member+

    Jan 29, 2001
    The Burgh of Edin
    Because I didn't want to include the entire resolution. But just for you,

    12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
     
  4. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    Thank you. Note the wishy-washiness and general piddliness of Paragraph 12, which simply calls for a follow-up to 1441. Compare it to, oh, a time when the UN was serious. THIS is what a war resolution looks like.

    The Security Council,
    Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.
    Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,
    Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security,
    Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
    Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
    1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to do so;
    2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
    3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
    4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
    5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.


    Note the lack of language like “use all necessary means” in 1441.

    Note the lack of language like “Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken.”

    Resolution 1441 is not a war resolution. If it had been, it wouldn’t have passed at all, let alone unanimously. It would have flamed out like the pending resolution will be.

    So stop living a dream already.
     
  5. 352klr

    352klr Member+

    Jan 29, 2001
    The Burgh of Edin
    People had asked what the resolution actually stated, so I provided it.

    And I simply asked for opinion if Iraq was in violation of 1441. If they are, and from the guidelines of 1441 they def. seem to be, what should happen next, Dan? Should we just say, oh well? Should we let let inspections continue and just turn a blind eye like we seem to be doing? These are valid questions that I am unsure of the answer on as far as my personal opinion goes.

    And as for stop living a dream, well I guess I will give up on dreaming that the UN could be a relavent body that actually holds people to its resolutions. If they aren't going to do so, what's the point in them even existing?
     
  6. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    I, too, am not giving my opinion here. I'm simply telling you how it is.

    They are in violation of 1441.

    So.

    Elephant-Raping.

    What.

    Powell was either totally misled or totally helpless to push through anything stronger. But it's not accurate to say that the Security Council is doing a flip-flop. And when Bush makes a big deal of saying how they're "backtracking" from 1441, he's not fooling anyone, least of all the Security Council.

    To prevent power-mad unelected dictators from simply doing whatever they wish on the world stage.

    If I didn't know better, I'd say this was all a master plan to split America from the UN, on the grounds that the latter is a one world government run by the Antichrist (cf. the Left Behind series).
     
  7. Waingro

    Waingro Member

    Feb 15, 2003
    San Diego, CA.
    Note paragraph 13:

    13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;


    If those who approved the resolution had any question as to the meaning of serious consequences, they wouldn't have approved it in the first place.

    Unless the belief is that they just approved it to shut Bush up...
     
  8. Waingro

    Waingro Member

    Feb 15, 2003
    San Diego, CA.
    And thank goodness the Florida Supreme Court was unsuccessful in their attempt to put one in office...
     
  9. sebakoole

    sebakoole New Member

    Jul 11, 2002
    They didn't have any questions about the meaning of this phrase, but they did have assurances from Colin Powell himself that a second resolution would be sought before a war would begin.
     
  10. Waingro

    Waingro Member

    Feb 15, 2003
    San Diego, CA.
    But there's nothing anywhere that says that another resolution is needed, only that one will be pursued. Granted, it'd be nice if we could get one. But, per the language in 1441 it's not required...
     
  11. sebakoole

    sebakoole New Member

    Jul 11, 2002
    I didn't claim that 1441 or any other written document stipulated another resolution was needed. I DID claim that Powell promised certain UN Security Council membersthat another resolution would be sought before a war was started. This was simply an oral promise, never written down as far as I know.

    Admittedly, he is not legally bound to this promise, but what's it going to look like if he doesn't keep his word on an issue as significant as this?
     
  12. MLSNHTOWN

    MLSNHTOWN Member+

    Oct 27, 1999
    Houston, TX
    I think Iraq has violated 1441. Just based on the reading above. If this is the opinion of the US government, they should attempt to get a second resolution requiring immediate disarmament or else. If that resolution fails, the US is left with two options. 1. Go it without the UN, or 2. Concede the important issues to the UN and go along with the current path of the Security Council.

    I think the press conference today by Ari was pretty good (I hate saying that). He said, if the Security Council vetoes, thats fine, no big deal, we can go to war with or without them. We don't need them as exemplified in getting rid of Milosevic. We didn't need them then, but NATO and the US intervened because it was in the right thing to do.
     
  13. Waingro

    Waingro Member

    Feb 15, 2003
    San Diego, CA.
    I guess it's only going to look bad if Powell admits making any promises in the first place.
    Is it known to which members/nations he made these promises? And did he make them to every nation that is now opposing enforcement, or only a couple of them.
    In any case, I think it would look worse for those nations that signed on to this based on a verbal promise (if one was actually made) rather than insisting that the resolution be worded accordingly. What would be their motivation for that? It just seems odd...

    Although at this point nothing surprises me...
     
  14. edcrocker

    edcrocker Member+

    May 11, 1999
    UN Resolution 1441 includes the following: “[The Security Council] decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security.”

    This paragraph suggests that the Security Council voted to reassess the situation before it authorizes any country to do anything to any other country. Therefore, if the US invades Iraq without first receiving UN authorization to do so, the US would be in material breach of 1441. Said paragraph also suggests that one of the purposes of 1441 is to give the Security Council a way out, so that there is a two-step process before any invasion occurs. First, Iraq must be in material breach of 1441. Second, the Council must then authorize invasion before any invasion can occur.

    Moreover, 1441 also includes the following paragraph, “[The Security Council] recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations…”
    Notice that the above paragraph does not stipulate that the US may invade Iraq if Iraq is in material breach of 1441. The paragraph merely mentions that the Security Council “recalls” that it has “repeatedly warned Iraq” that it will face “serious consequences” if Iraq violates its obligations.

    Therefore, let’s say that the Security Council were to vote tomorrow that Iraq materially breached 1441. Under the UN Charter and Resolution 1441, such a vote would not be sufficient grounds for the US to invade Iraq. “Serious consequences” is not the same as invasion. If the Security Council wanted to authorize invasion, they would have used the word “invasion.”

    In addition, Iraq has clearly made significant progress in disarming and accounting for their weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems. And that was the purpose behind 1441.

    Finally, it is important to understand the context of 1441 and tomorrow’s vote. The Security Council must realize that President Bush will not abide by the spirit of 1441. In other words, they must realize that if they vote that Iraq is in material breach of 1441, Bush will order an invasion of Iraq. He will not wait for the second step of the two-step process that is clearly implicit in 1441.

    Moreover, it would be awful if Bush orders an invasion of Iraq, especially without explicit UN authorization to do so. For one thing, there is good reason to believe that many lives would be lost if the US invades. Further, if the Security Council decisively defeats the US/British amendment to 1441, then Bush may be less apt to order an invasion of Iraq. Therefore, the members of the Security Council should vote against the proposed amendment to 1441.
     
  15. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    > if the Security Council vetoes, thats fine, no big
    > deal, we can go to war with or without them

    Yeah, but Clinton did a much better job of this. When the UN was shown to be unwilling, he immediatly switched to another forum, NATO.

    And don't forget that the type of action taken is very different. What we did over Serbia is pretty much the same as what we did and are doing over Iraq in the post-Gulf War era. It is something that can be done without any UN mandate at all. Invasion and change in governemnt is a horse of a different color.
     
  16. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    Paragraph 12.

    in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security

    What we're seeing now is the UNSC considering the need for full compliance.

    Short of a second resolution, there will be no way for anyone to know what the outcome of the deliberations were.

    And I hate to keep repeating myself, but all Paragraph 13 calls for is recollection. You couldn't shoot a dog under the provisions of 1441.

    Now, as far as the legality of going it alone - funny Ari brought up NATO. Wonder why we haven't asked for THEIR help, Germany?

    In reality, the legality as far as the US is concerned was settled a while ago. The Senate passed the resolution. It's nice and Constitutional. What happens now is whether it's politically possible to carry through the war with no UN support, maybe no UK support.
     
  17. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My bulls*** meter just went red.
     
  18. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Exactly. I mean, his schtick seems to working fairly well with the American public, which spends maybe 15 minutes a day following this story. So all they see on the CBS news is a statement from Bush or a surrogate, and then a 5 minute feature on our war plans.

    It's not playing so well with people whose job it is to follow this. The national media seems, to me, to be getting queasier. Foreign diplomats are aghast.

    It's just not good diplomacy to treat people who work on this 8-10 hours a day like they're people who spend 8-10 minutes a day on it. People resent being lied to. That's how I ended up at a march. I got tired of being lied to.
     
  19. 352klr

    352klr Member+

    Jan 29, 2001
    The Burgh of Edin
    Fair enough, but everytime I've seen someone post the contents of an entire link before, they have their posts edited and/or get carded.
     
  20. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Only if it's copyrighted. The contents of a UN resolution isn't the kind of thing that has a copyright.

    I think.
     
  21. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Ah, selective text readings... tsk tsk.

    How about a really DETAILED reading instead...you know, one that looks at what the Resolution SAID and the what actually happened?

    Gee, that's an interesting concept, don't you think. Let's give it a whirl. Here we go:

    Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

    Now, the Conseil de Securite FEELS really bad about this…oh, what is it?? oh, that’s right… the FACT that Iraq ISN’T doing what it’s supposed to do …that it flicking the bird at the international community….

    OK, let’s proceed…

    Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

    Well, they slipped up in this language, neglecting to call it a FACT, but I think one can safely INFER…um…the FACT that Iraq has REPEATEDLY obstructed weapons inspections…and also, by a reasonable inference, the need to DISARM as a result of inspections…

    Now, another gloss….

    Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

    Oh, gee some more regret…but of what?? Wait, that’s right, the “prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people” …JUST a minute here…I thought this was about Weapons Inspections. How could I possibly think this??
    Hmmm, it’s getting interesting. Let’s continue.

    Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

    My goodness…not a WORD about weapons inspections in THIS part of the resolution…it’s about,…ahem…the FACT that Saddam is a bad, bad, bad, BAD boy…repressing as he does his civilian population, etc. etc.

    OK, OK, I understand this is in part about how the SC FEELS about Saddam…so let’s move onto what THIS resolution demands…

    Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

    Oh, my!! Disarmament obligations?? I thought this was about letting inspections work!! How silly of me.

    And did he, you know, provide an “accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects” of his weapons program according to the deadline here?? Anybody out there have an answer on this one?? Anybody?? You know, did he, um, disclose the, um “unmanned aerial vehicles?” Anybody have an answer on that one?? Anybody??

    So what happens if he DOESN’T do what he’s supposed to do? Well, maybe this paragraph will help…

    Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations

    Hmmm…let me see…if he omitted stuff in his declarations – maybe about drones, for instance…he would be in…YES…he would be in “material breach!!” That can’t be right, can it?? Oh my!!
    You know, I wonder what other possible mess-ups our boy Saddam could have. Let’s take a look at this one.

    Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

    I’m really racking my brains here…did any of interviews with Iraqi scientists occur IMMEDIATELY without any minders around? Can anyone help me on this one? For the life of me, I just can’t remember.

    Let’s see now…what’s the authority here? Maybe this paragraph can help us.

    Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

    Oh, I get it. This resolution is BINDING. And didn’t Iraq say it would “comply fully with the resolution?” You know, FULLY??

    Whew, we’re at the end here. The penultimate paragraph:

    Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

    Let me see if I get this straight. They are “recalling” what they’ve warned..OK, I got that…now what have they warned?? Oh, I see, they have warned Iraq that it WILL—not might, maybe, possibly, perhaps, kinda sorta, probably, yada yada yada -- that it WILL face “serious consequences.”

    So let’s see.

    Make a full, accurate and complete declaration according to the deadline? Nope.

    Make false and incomplete statements about what he had? Yep.

    Provide immediate unfettered access to scientists, documents, etcetera? Nope.

    Did Iraq at "any time" fail to "comply" with the provisions of this resolution? Yep.

    In material breach?? Yep.

    WILL face serious consequences? Yep.
     
  22. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    bump to a REAL reading of 1441
     
  23. GringoTex

    GringoTex Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    1301 miles de Texas
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    Now define "serious consequences." You can't- it was intended to mean nothing. But Bush has convinced a bunch of uneducated Americans it can only mean regime change.
     
  24. MikeLastort2

    MikeLastort2 Member

    Mar 28, 2002
    Takoma Park, MD
    I bet it means it'll go on Saddam's "permanent record."
     
  25. irishFS1921

    irishFS1921 New Member

    Aug 2, 2002
    WB05 Compound
    and we have the ball handling UN to thank for such great wording.
     

Share This Page