Clinton, On Shaky Ground, Seeks Un Approval

Ironically, US President Bill Clinton, though he tells the American people that the missile strike was necessary to protect the country's national interest, is turning to the United Nations to provide international legitimacy.

The US is using the UN Security Council's resolution 688, which condemns Iraq's repression of the Kurds, as the legal figleaf for its actions. The 1991 resolution, however, does not specify any safe haven, restrict the movement of Iraqi troops within the country, or talk of utilising military options.

I think the US is skating on thin ice here, says Jeff Laurenti, executive director of the United Nations Association of the United States. If you look at just the facts in isolation, the US position is very murky, very weak.

 

The legal position becomes especially questionable with the unilateral extension of the no-fly zone. At least some experts have warned that the extension can be construed as impinging on Iraq's sovereignty, particularly when the move is not backed by a Security Council resolution.

But administration officials argue that the US strike is perfectly justified because the Security Council asked member nations to take all necessary action to back its resolutions.

Resolution 678 says all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council resolutions should be employed to restore peace and security. Both 678 and 688 together form the basis for the action we took, state department spokesman Glyn Davies said Wednesday.

The legal framework is necessary to lend an element of legitimacy to what is an Anglo-American operation. Russia, China and France, the other three permanent members of the Security Council, are not happy with the American decision.

The administration also says that the question of national sovereignty does not apply in Iraq's case because the UN has already called on Baghdad to desist from moving against the Kurds.