I make no assert ations as to the validity of any of the information contained in this document. On the eighth of November 2002, the United Nations security council, consisting of the five permanent members ^aEUR” The United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France – and the rotating member states of Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore and Syria passed a resolution mandate, entitled 1441, unanimously and without any nations abstaining from vote. The resolution recalled all the previous resolutions concerning Iraq and importantly, recognised the threat of Iraq’s non-compliance with UN directives and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long range weapons posed to international peace and security and deplored the facts that Iraq had not made a accurate, complete and final disclosure on all programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and the vehicles to implement said weaponry and that Iraq had repeatedly obstructed international regulators and inspectors to inspect and control the proliferation of said weaponry. And so, once again, Iraq grudgingly allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq for the first time since 1998 to inspect the alleged lack of disarmament. The lead inspector, Hans Blix was ordered to report to the council after sixty days of inspections ^aEUR” January 27, 2003.
In his report, Blix detailed Iraq’s less than forthcoming attitude and sense of evasion towards inspectors, their failure to prove commitment to disarmament and several troubling questions over their weapons inventories. Yet no conclusive evidence was found pointing towards participation of restricted weapons programs. Blix empathized the issue of cooperation over evidence. Essentially, his report was just short of finding a smoking gun. Thanks to the new abundance of near-damming evidence on Iraq, the United States planned to introduce a new resolution dictating harsher inspection terms and that non-compliance on Iraq’s behalf would result in military action. However, the United States found that several nations, including some permanent members of the UNSC were now opposed to joint or unilateral military action in Iraq.
The Term Paper on United Nations Iraq Weapons Inspectors
The topic I choose was Iraq and its past and still ongoing problems with the United Nations. The reason I choose this topic as oppose to another topic is war and the United Nations has always fascinated me. With Saddam Hussein still being stubborn with UN weapons inspectors it was incredibly easy to obtain information regarding this topic. The Los Angles Times; California; Feb 12 2000; The newest ...
Key opponents included Russia and France. Both threatened to veto a the new resolution. Russia, the most vocal opponent, was unconvinced with the inspectors’ reports, stating a fundamental lack of evidence. They supported resumed inspections under the same terms. Above all, they wished to see a stable middle-east. France accused the United States and its key ally, Britain, of rhetoric and arrogance.
They did, however, support a new resolution closing the legal loopholes of 1441 and that use of force should be reserved for another resolution. They also questioned certain proposed inspection terms. Like Russia, they wished to see a peaceful, stable middle east region. Many opponents did also not concur with the American view of post-war Iraq which resembled the new Afghanistan ^aEUR” representative of ethnic groups, but for the moment, non-democratic.
The dreadful irony was that they could have vetoed any action on Iraq back in November when 1441 was being debated, which would have greatly shifted their present situation, and in hindsight, increased their bargaining power. The complete turnaround of support and ideology raised questions about the UN’s stability. US president George W. Bush was meanwhile gaining congressional authorisation to act unilaterally without the support of the United Nations. The Bush administration had two key problems with Russia and France’s version of the resolutions ^aEUR” it had no clause for regime change and that it was concerned primarily with disarmament, which they believed gave Saddam a large buffer of time in which to stall the progress of resolution. New questions were now being raised at the UN ^aEUR” to what extent did the United States need the support of the UN politically and militarily? Ideologically, the Bush administration was as afraid of a redundant United Nations as the rest of the free world.
The Essay on Andrew Johnson President State War
Andrew Johnson Andrew Johnson was born on December 29, 1808, in Raleigh, North Carolina, the youngest of two sons. His father, Jacob Johnson, was a porter who died in 1811 after saving a man from drowning. His mother, Mary McDonough Johnson supported the family by spinning and weaving cloth in their Raleigh cottage. At the age of 14, Johnson was apprenticed to a tailor. In 1843 Johnson was elected ...
The United States needed either to unite the UN quickly or act unilaterally within the time of less than two months before the optimal winter conditions in Iraq would disappear. Also, a procrastinated build-up to war was having a negative effect on the United States and world economy. Meanwhile, public opposition to the war was growing steadily internationally and almost all Islamic nations expressed their discontent stating a variety of reasons, including those humanitarian and an alleged lack of evidence. The United States threatened the UN with unilateral action if a resolution was not passed by the beginning of March.
The threat was a large bargaining chip and stimulated debate. A second resolution was not implemented and the United States and its allies ^aEUR” the coalition ^aEUR” declared war on March 20. In retrospect, the war could have been averted had the United Nations been unified in its causes and maintained the same, if different, viewpoint for 1441 as the proposed new resolution. This would have maintained the utility of the UN to resolve conflicts. Even though, this may not have averted the war if the US continued its relative intransigence through the UN debates. One must remember, however, that hindsight is an exact science.
UN Resolution 1441.
