What UN Resolution 1441 Actually Says
 

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...2003Mar10.html), is Iraq in violation of 1441?

Why'd you leave out paragraph 12?

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;

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

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?

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).

What UN Resolution 1441 Actually Says
 

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...

What UN Resolution 1441 Actually Says
 

And thank goodness the Florida Supreme Court was unsuccessful in their attempt to put one in office...

Re: What UN Resolution 1441 Actually Says
 

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.

What UN Resolution 1441 Actually Says
 

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...