Bill SprichtJust another WordPress weblog

3 April 1991 (Resolution 687)

Iraq shall submit to the Security Council, within fifteen days of the adoption of this Resolution, a declaration on the location, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection …

… Requires Iraq to inform the Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism.

15 August 1991 (Resolution 707)

… the aforementioned failures of Iraq to act in strict conformity with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) constitute a material breach of its acceptance of the relevant provisions of that resolution which established a cease-fire…

… Demands that Iraq a) Provide without further delay final and complete disclosure…

12 June 1996 (Resolution 1060)

Noting with concern the incidents on 11 and 12 June 1996, reported to members of the Council by the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission, when access by a Special Commission inspection team to sites in Iraq designated for inspection by the Commission was excluded by the Iraqi authorities,…

…Demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission in accordance with the relevant resolutions; and that the Government of Iraq allow the Special Commission inspection teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect;

21 June 1997 (Resolution 1115)

Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission, which constitutes a clear and flagrant violation of the provisions of Security Council resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991) and 1060 (1996);

… Demands further that the Government of Iraq give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to officials and other persons under the authority of the Iraqi Government whom the Special Commission wishes to interview, so that the Special Commission may fully discharge its mandate;

23 October 1997 (Resolution 1134)

Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities, as detailed in the report of the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission, to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission, and especially Iraqi actions endangering the safety of Special Commission personnel, the removal and destruction of documents of interest to the Special Commission and interference with the freedom of movement of Special Commission personnel;

… Decides that such refusals to cooperate constitute a flagrant violation of Security Council resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991) and 1060 (1996), and notes that the Special Commission in the report of the Executive Chairman was unable to advise that Iraq was in substantial compliance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of resolution 1115 (1997);

… Demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission in accordance with the relevant resolutions, which constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance;

12 November 1997 (Resolution 1137)

Condemns the continued violations by Iraq of its obligations under the relevant resolutions to cooperate fully and unconditionally with the Special Commission in the fulfilment of its mandate, including its unacceptable decision of 29 October 1997 to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with the Special Commission, its refusal on 30 October 1997 and 2 November 1997 to allow entry to Iraq to two Special Commission officials on the grounds of their nationality, its denial of entry on 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 November 1997 to sites designated by the Special Commission for inspection to Special Commission inspectors on the grounds of their nationality, its implicit threat to the safety of the reconnaissance aircraft operating on behalf of the Special Commission, its removal of significant pieces of dual-use equipment from their previous sites, and its tampering with monitoring cameras of the Special Commission;

… Demands that the Government of Iraq rescind immediately its decision of 29 October 1997;

… Demands also that Iraq cooperate fully and immediately and without conditions or restrictions with the Special Commission in accordance with the relevant resolutions, which constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance;

9 September 1998 (Resolution 1194)

Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA, which constitutes a totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations under resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991), 1060 (1996), 1115 (1997) and 1154 (1998), and the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and the Secretary-General on 23 February 1998;

5 November 1998 (Resolution 1205)

Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission as a flagrant violation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions;

… Demands that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998, to suspend cooperation with the Special Commission and to maintain restrictions on the work of the IAEA, and that Iraq provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA;

8 November 2002 (Resolution 1441)

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);

… 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;

Zrich is apparently the best place to live, with Vienna and Vancouver tied for second, and then another Swiss city, Geneva, coming next. As if that weren’t enough, a third Swiss city, Berne, is just after that. And if that weren’t enough, they won the America’s Cup–the first Europeans to do so.

I read about the city rankings at CNN here. Sorry I have no other link to offer those who despise CNN as a tool of American imperialism. Not even the Neue Zürcher Zeitung has a word about it yet.

What is amazing is that Baghdad, though close, is not at the bottom of the list. Actually it’s not amazing. Baghdad is a city to which war is coming but is not already there. There are other cities in the world that already have war, and let’s just say the troops there are not American and British troops!

I’m here to confirm that Vienna is indeed a great place to live.

A very good Austrian friend of mine sent me the following via e-mail last week:

My opinion of the Americans: I like them a lot… They are funny, they speak a nice colorful english … and [something positive about art and culture which I didn't quite understand in German.] Couldn’t they be satisfied with that and leave the rest of the world as it is? But all in all I like them and can accept their shortcomings. [my emphasis]

People forget how often in the past — the fairly recent past — the Americans have been criticized for being too isolationist. We came in late to both world wars because the American people simply do not like overseas adventures. Clearly the younger generation of anti-war activists don’t believe this. They think we hop on aircraft carriers the moment we hear someone far away doesn’t like us.

Many Americans are frustrated with the role we play in world affairs. The fact is, we’re pushed and pulled. Britain was often furious that we would not enter the war against Hitler. Some get angry when we don’t act fast in places like Africa where genocidal wars are taking place. Some say we (NATO) should have intervened earlier in Bosnia and Kosovo, while others say we should not have been involved at all. Some wanted us to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, many didn’t.

During basically every interview with the western press, Yassir Arafat’s advisors call on the United States to do more for the peace effort in the Middle East. I know this is because we are by far Israel’s greatest supporter and therefore have the greatest influence over them. But, at the same time, the Palestinian Authority is not willing to carry out the reforms that we suggest. In other words, they want our intervention but on their terms. They ask us to help, but don’t listen to the advice or the offers.

The same thing happens in the Gulf. Many of those who are vehemently opposed to a resumption of hostilities with Iraq claim that containment and deterrence can work. And guess who is supposed to do the containing. Only the US and the UK have stepped up to this role. It’s easy for other countries to say you, USA, should keep containing Saddam Hussein forever. But we say that containment is not working, and we are not willing to sit there forever while people openly smuggle goods in and out of Iraq in violation of the UN resolutions that we are supposed to be helping to enforce.

We also hate the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Do people think we want to be there? Chairman Kim is a damn scary guy! But we stay to honor our commitment — also made with the United Nations — not to allow a dictatorship’s dynasty to overtake its southern neighbor. Do we get any thanks for that? Not from the younger generation of South Koreans, and their dislike of us really makes us wish we could get out of there. But it would be close to a criminal act for us to simply pack up and leave Korea. We became involved when Europe and Japan were still reconstructing after the second world war, China was actively supporting the North Koreans, and there were simply no other powerful armies around to help the United Nations in the effort to save South Korea. Should we have abandoned them then? Should we abandon them now when no one else is willing to take over? Do you trust Chairman Kim?

No one wants the United States to have less responsibility in the world than the Americans themselves. I feel confident saying that most Americans would rather go back to being the “sleeping giant” that Japan awakened in December 1941. I think most of us have always thought that the ideal situation is a relatively isolated United States that maintains a very powerful army which kicks into gear when we are threatened. At the moment, we are indeed threatened. So we are in “action” mode, something that makes us nervous as hell, upsets our economy and produces the predictable rise in anti-USA sentiment.

Yeah, we love this stuff.

Many of those noble souls known as “human shields” (menschliche Schilde) are apparently not in it for the long haul. It will be interesting to see how many leftists are left in Baghdad when the bombs begin to drop. Seems as though they were a bit surprised to discover that the Iraqi government took them at their word: that they truly wanted to use them as … you guessed it … human shields!

I’m not sure if these Schilde are feigning disappointment or they are unimaginably stupid. It is beyond comprehension that they could be in anyway surprised that a brutal dictatorship which does anything it can to remain in power would tell them to stay at militarily strategic locations or get out of the country.

This report about the noble British shields is from the Daily Telegraph. A follow up report by a journalist who traveled with the noble Brits can be found here. It is an absolute must-read.

The English language Austria Today says that the eight more Austrians who were expected to go are reportedly afraid (echt?) and will not go. The four that are there are being advised to come back. One leader of an Austrian organization that supports the shields says that he is recommending they come back because he is convinced (ready for this?) that the United States will attack Iraq!

Call me a fool, but wasn’t that the reason they were there in the first place?

Despite this kind of double-talk and the obvious humiliation that they (deservedly) experienced at the hands of the dictatorship’s goons, I’m rather certain the noble ones will be greeted back home as heroes.

Last Thursday I met a good friend of mine, a Russian, at a cafe in Vienna for a farewell drink or two; he’d been in Vienna all of February attending a language class. He also invited two people (a Hungarian and an Italian) from the class and one other guy he’d met in Vienna (a Greek). Small talk ruled for a bit, but eventually one of them, the Greek, got around to asking my opinion about the current President of the United States. (I find the choice of topic interesting: war is about to break out in Iraq, yet I’m first asked my opinion of the personage in the White House rather than the event itself. This is just another example of how absolutely obsessed many Europeans are with George W. Bush the person.)

Anyway, I went straight to the main point and said I supported the president and the coming war in Iraq. I then said something really stupid: that I knew I was probably the only person currently on the European continent who supported the war. I try to remind myself not to say such things, because they cater to the impression that the Western Europeans are “Europe” and ignore the newly-emerging Eastern and Central European countries, many of whose people (and whose governments) support the American position. Of course I was speaking to a Greek, so he wasn’t exactly Western European either, so perhaps this point doesn’t apply. But you get my meaning: we should stay away from saying “Europe” when discussing the anti-war, anti-American sentiment. This rule is not easy to stick to, since it’s such a big chunk of Europe that is opposed to us.

He and I had a very nice and polite back and forth. The Hungarian then joined in. He was also quite a nice guy, and I still think he probably always is, on average, a very nice guy, despite how angry I later became. We had the standard back-and-forth about Bush, Israel, the UN, Hussein, etc. Everything was fine. I mean, we were in strong disagreement, yet it was fine for quite a long while. But then he said he fully believes that the United States purposely dropped bombs on civilians in Afghanistan. At first I doubted that I had understood him correctly, so I spoke very slowly, very clearly, and asked, “Let me make sure I understand, because this is important. Are you saying you believe that the United States bombed civilians, knowing they were civilians, out of revenge for September 11?”

“Yes.”

I said farewell to my Russian friend, wished him a safe trip and left. Probably the best thing.

The Hungarian man could have told me that George W. Bush was the most evil man who ever walked on our planet, worse than a combo Hitler-Stalin, and I wouldn’t have reacted the way I did. My attitude towards absurd judgments like those about the president is that they will be proved false or exaggerated in the long run; they are largely based on conjecture, not on judgments of things that already happened. But in this instance the Hungarian was talking about an event in the past that really did happen — alas, we killed civilians in Afghanistan — and accusing the US airmen and their superiors of premeditated murderer.