News Release

U.S. Demanding an “Occupation Arrangement”?

JAMES PAUL
Executive director of Global Policy Forum and author of several recent papers on Iraq, Paul said today: “The U.S./U.K. draft of a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution, leaked to The New York Times [published in the Oct. 2 edition], says that ‘Iraq shall provide … immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities,…’ and ‘Any permanent member of the Security Council may request to be represented on any inspection team with the same right and protections….’ This is one of several booby traps in the text to make sure that the Iraqis don’t accept it. The idea is that the U.S. and the U.K. can put their people on the team and can be present anywhere, anytime in Iraq. When the Security Council created the new inspection regime, UNMOVIC [U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission], it was seen as intended to be free of the taint of espionage and other covert operations, primarily by the U.S., that destroyed the credibility of UNSCOM. This resolution totally undermines that. The text also says: ‘Teams shall be accompanied at the bases by sufficient U.N. security forces,… shall have the right to declare for the purposes of this resolution no-fly/no-drive zones, exclusion zones, and/or ground- and air-transit corridors, which shall be enforced by U.N. security forces or by members of the Council;…’ What they are talking about is an occupation arrangement, similar to demands made at Rambouillet on Yugoslavia. Since the government of Iraq will not accept that, Iraqi rejection will be used as a pretext for war. The resolution further says that if Iraq does not comply, member states can use ‘all necessary means’ — a green light for the use of force.”
More Information
More Information

JOHN QUIGLEY
Professor of international law at Ohio State University, Quigley said today: “The U.S. should not be seeking to disrupt an agreement between the U.N. and Iraq on how this should be resolved…. The U.S./U.K. resolution says that ‘failure by Iraq at any time to comply and cooperate fully in accordance with the provisions laid out in this resolution, shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations, and that such breach authorizes member states to use all necessary means…’ It’s saying that any violation, even an insignificant or accidental one, could be used as a pretext for invasion. It also says that member states can make such determination. You should have some mechanism, such as further consideration by the Security Council. This is really just a blank check for an armed attack on Iraq.”

FRANCIS BOYLE
Professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, Boyle said today: “The resolution is just a pretext for war. No way Iraq, or any other state, could accept such a resolution…. The U.S. government is [currently] violating the U.N. Charter … by using military force to allegedly ‘police’ the illegal ‘no-fly’ zones…”

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167