_______________________________________________________________ | | | · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · | · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · | · · · · · The so called no fly zones and the U.N. · · · · · | · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · | · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · | | | | The so called no fly zones and the U.N. | http://legal.lege.net/no_fly_zones/ | | | This text was written WELL BEFORE the US/UK full scale | attack on Iraq and deals with the illegal US/UK bombing of | Iraq in the years between Gulf War I and Gulf War II | | It was originally written in Swedish, but has been | translated to English by Leif Erlingsson. It is being used | with permission from the author. | | Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:30:21 +0100 | From: Anders Ekbom | To: Leif Erlingsson | Subject: Re: US/UK bombing of Iraq | | | | The US/UK bombing of Iraq between Gulf War I and Gulf War II | | It's important to remember that the zones were established | by the US, the UK and France after the Gulf War, *not* by | the UN. | | Briefly, the US/UK argues that there is justification in | resolution 688 for the attacks according to article 42 in | the 7:th chapter of the UN Charter, while most analysts (and | also UN:s lawyers!) feels that the resolution does not fall | under this chapter. | | UN resolution 688 | http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/24/IMG/NR059624.pdf | | UN Charter, chapter VII | http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm | | The British seems lately to have become somewhat less | self-assured, and now says that: | " ... the justification is essentially based on the | overwhelming humanitarian necessity of protecting people on | the ground, combined with the need to monitor the effect of | 688; so it is the two taken in combination that provides the | legal justification." | http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/453/45306.htm#a8 | | Lately [remember, this was written 9 Mar 2003, BEFORE 20 Mar | 2003!] the US/UK have justified the attacks with the | argument that when Iraq is using it's targeting radar | against American and British aircraft, they are in breach of | resolution 1441, where it is stated that Iraq may not use | force against the forces that are enforcing the resolutions. | This is however somewhat problematic since the no-fly-zones | aren't established according to any UN-resolution. | | Some other analyzes: | Did The United Nations Authorize "No-Fly" Zones Over Iraq? | http://slate.msn.com/id/2074302/ | "... in 1993, the U.N. legal department announced that it | could find no existing Security Council resolutions | authorizing the United States, Britain, and France to | enforce the no-fly zones." | | No-fly zones: The legal position | http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2490361.stm | | Also in the U.S. this has attracted attention: | No-Fly zones go on trial in Des Moines, Iowa | http://www.commondreams.org/views/061400-106.htm | | And regarding the claim that the zones are established in | order to protect resistance groups in Northern and Southern | Iraq: | "...it should be noted when the Kurds in the North and | Shiites in the South rose up against the government of Iraq | in 1991 they were denied military help from the West and | their rebellion was crushed..." | (From the above article) | | And when one also knows that Turkish aircraft (with the U.S. | fully aware) regularly have attacked kurdish groups in | northern Iraq, such claims have a distinctly cynical ring to | them. | http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2000/1025nfly.htm | | One CAN legalize these zones, but only by asserting that | resolution 688 through resolution 678 is giving the | international community the right to use all available means | to restore stability and safety to the region (it was | resolution 678 that gave the right to the invasion of Iraq | in 1991), and by further claiming that the requirements for | the cease-fire that are mentioned in resolution 678 haven't | been fulfilled since Iraq has resisted the U.N. weapons | inspections. [The latter is however patently false. In | 1998, President Bill Clinton successfully pressured UNSCOM | director Richard Butler to withdraw inspectors without | authorization from the Secretary General or the Security | Council -- before their mission was complete -- in order to | engage in a four-day heavy bombing campaign against Iraq. | As predicted at the time, this illegal use of military force | -- combined with revelations that the United States had | abused the inspections process for espionage purposes -- | resulted in the Iraqi government barring the inspectors' | return until a reorganized inspections commission known as | UNMOVIC commenced inspections last year. [Steven Zunes, | ``An Annotated Critique of President George W. Bush's March | 17 Address Preparing the Nation for War,'' (Silver City, NM | & Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, March 2003)]]. | So by presupposing a whole lot of things that are not | explicitly expressed in resolutions, and also by | interpreting international law in a rather one-track manner, | one can assert that the no-fly zones are legal. | http://asil.org/insights/insigh62.htm | | But: To say that American aircraft according to | international law have the right to defend themselves when | "attacked" (= locked by Iraqi target radar) by the Iraqi air | defense, when the American aircrafts according to all | international law is actually violating Iraqi airspace, | feels rather strained. | | I haven't found any American debate about this (like the | British example above), but even though I really have tried, | I have been unable to find any signs of any international | treaty for the establishment of these zones. | |______________________________________________________________