And who do you know anywhere in the world who will even subtly change their support for the Afghanistan war due to the differences in wording you outlined between the Guld War and Afghanistan UN resolutions?
And do you really care about the difference? Did you support the Gulf War because of its legality? Or are you accenting the difference for opportunistic reasons of propaganda- something most folks will assume if you opposed both wars.
What's wrong with emphasizing core issues specific to this war- people are dying needlessly for a war that will not assure American security and will not decrease terrorism. All the rest is unlikely to convince anyone.
-- Nathan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>
Nathan wrote:
>First, when an argument is theoretically and factually bankrupt, making
the
>argument is a bad idea-- it taints the credibility of the left in far
>broader arenas. Truth is the most important weapon and we should stick to
>arguments that conform with our beliefs and reality, not make
propagandistic
>nice-sounding statements that ring hollow to most intelligent listeners.
It's a _fact_ that the US government didn't bother to seek an authorization to use all necessary force from the Security Council (a la the Gulf War), even though it _would_ have most likely been capable of having the SC issue such an authorization had it done so, _as far as the use of force against Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban is concerned_. See the UN SC resolutions 1368 & 1373: <http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01091221.htm> & <http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01092902.htm>.
An explicit SC authorization for military action reads like this: "*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" (emphasis added, S/RES/678 [1990], at <gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s90/32>. Compare it with the UN SC resolution 1368: "5. *Expresses its readiness* to take all necessary steps *in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations* to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and to combat terrorism" (emphasis added, at <http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01091221.htm>). Any thinking person can see the difference here between authorization to use all necessary means (including use of force) and "readiness to take all necessary steps in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations" (and the necessary steps in question that the SC did authorize are clearly spelled out in the SC resolution 1373).
It's a matter of geopolitical interest that the US government decided *not* to have the SC authorize its use of force. It demonstrates that while the member states of the SC may be willing not to interfere with the US government in its actions against Afghanistan, they are in no way prepared to authorize it to wage an enduring war on any and all states that the US government decides to target in the future by proclaiming that they "harbor terrorists." Such a blank check can only come from US Congress, not from the SC.
We take interest in international law, not because US imperialism is all right as long as it's legal, not because there is such a thing as the Platonic form of Law (eternal, timeless, & universal), but because legal questions often clarify where the balance of forces & public sentiments stands. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Anti-War Organizing in Columbus Covered by the Media: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/media.html>