International Law expert and lecturer at Hamburg University, Prof. Dr. With Norman Paech Mülakat. / Document legitimate war in Iraq is not America's
of saying. Dr. Norman Paech, "The world now is not like the Roman Empire period. America's military, economic sovereignty and the actions that have to be based on a legal basis," he said. International law expert and University of Hamburg Faculty
Prof. Dr. Norman Paech, ongoing war in Iraq, developments in the law regarding the size and assessed to the Kurdish problem.
-Iraq war began. Conflicts gradually intensifying. Is the Iraq crisis was the bankruptcy of international law, I wonder?
now the United Nations and international law are in a difficult situation. The UN and international law as the center of the Iraq war took a heavy defeat and önleyemediler. This war is completely contrary to international law. I can not find any reason to show this war legitimate.
-So Is this a war of aggression? The Americans and British attack on the UN Charter
2 Article 4 means to be a violation of paragraph completely. UN Charter Article in question states that the national defense situations unless there is recourse to violence and war against each other is forbidden to open. Use violence and to declare war, and only with the approval of the UN Security Council, or may limit the realizable. As you can see the Iraq war
Such a situation is not in question, such as the UN without the consent of the Americas, UK and Australian law states that deliberately pushed to one side, acted on its own against Iraq. Very little other than a group of international legal experts, almost all over the world share the same foresight. This is the first.
Secondly, on the other hand, as shown in a country like America is a very strong need for the UN duyduğudur. For example, in America since 1991, Iraq "oil for food" program revive again, trying to take the help of the program within the framework of the UN again. The post-war reconstruction of Iraq and wants to maintain order internationalizing the issue. America can not find the power to act on its own specific situations and needs the UN. In addition, the U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's Iraq
the hands of ill-treatment of prisoners of war made Americans say the Iraqi administration wants to act in accordance with the Geneva Treaty. I personally Rumsfeld I do not see this request seriously. As well as anyone they want to stay connected to international conventions. The Taliban fighters taken prisoner of war in Afghanistan or al-Qaide Center, brought to Guantanamo, they are invalid for describing the Geneva Treaty, the United States know.
Here you can tell: the place and time when the United States is necessary for a power law is that the world hegomonyasal. And I had to hold it. So the World, is now the Roman Empire during the period not like. America's military, economic sovereignty and the actions that have to be based on a legal basis. Despite all these developments
-Will it be the UN's role and importance in the future? Of course I believe that this exact
. The UN will play an important role in international affairs in the future. The UN wants to avoid the crisis of Iraq, the war and the anti-war between the states to make mediation, weapons checkers work very well co-ordinated manner, the problem in detail in the Security Council open debate, and all necessary tools to apply to work for a political solution, I think it caused by the strengthening of this institution more than the weakening. UN to open America's Iraq war weakened against all odds. In contrast to what the UN has shown that an institution is a fair and realistic. UN
lived a true defeat. But that also proved how important the international community. How important it is legal solutions to solve problems of interstate has shown us. The problem is: If the states act in accordance with international law, there is no problem they solved. This also depends on the individual states have legal cultures. Germany has expressed readiness for humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. But by the United States that he opposes the request to this effect as a tool to use. All these are matters in which differences of opinion in Germany and the United States shows us that. The German government on the one hand against the war-
says that, on the other hand the war in the military crew, early warning aircraft to detect traces of chemical weapons Awacslar and tanks are named Fuchs. All this was not enough, such as the American and British aircraft has opened its air space. Do you think the war in Germany in?
No, I do not want Germany to evaluate it. Situation is not as described. Germany has shown a clear stance against the war. Germany is against this war. In addition, also in Germany, other countries, because of the anti-war stance I think it also led an anti-war orbit. Germany's anti-war front in the world so I think attitude is a very important role in strengthening. Which states were involved in solidarity with the anti-war Germany. The attitude of a country that is strong in Europe such as Germany, French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Putin has set an example for. I think if the Federal government
izlemeseydi a line of anti-war, and perhaps neither peace nor anti-war movement front could be so powerful. As for Germany's weapons and troops in the region, I think all this is that within the framework of NATO's responsibility. In addition, America's relationship with Germany as a whole showed a small gesture to kopmaması. This is another facet of work is needed. Together with these, very little aid has made it necessary for Germany to war not to be common. Germany wants war, not a common sign in the other, will be translated into ruin after the war in Iraq will not engage in the construction of open is explained in a way. Germany, stated that Iraq would not be a cleaning company. -The Iraq war has not done
tender pulled America. How do you assess this situation? First of all the oil contracts
Americans their receivables. Grant to provide the opportunity to gain more than others in Iraq. American companies move more passed before the war. Iraq on the sources of wealth, will be the first time Americans have a voice and sömüreceklerdir. In addition, other states will work to partner companies at a rate of almost non-existent, and even to give legitimacy to war in Iraq are doing later decision of the United Nations Security Council and the public to deal with kalkışacaktır removal. We know they are displaying to decision No. 1441 of the excised effort. But who want to give legitimacy to war seems impossible to come to a decision. France later in the war-a decision that will provide a legitimacy of humanitarian aid stated definitely that they were against even-kapsasa. Share a common view on this issue in Germany and France. Americans are the plans of the post-war
?
Home plans in Iraq (Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul) exploit the rich oil fields and oil companies, partnerships, exploiting their rights. America wants to conquer Iraq, underground and surface sources of wealth and want a voice on the matter. Other states will keep away from these sources. In this context, plans are ready. In addition, to guarantee American interests in Afghanistan-as well as appoint a new government. But the government of Iraq, how does the structure of a central state-kavuşacağı-federation, all of these post-war U.S. strategy is another important part of. Currently, negotiations are open in this situation. As is known, is not constructive yıkıcıdırlar wars. Maybe the solution is a confederation
..
a possible Iraq war the Kurds-the previously will be among the losers indicated that. Do you still defend the same opinion? I fear the Kurds will be among the losers in this battle
. Major concerns in this matter. Between American and Turkish interests of the Kurds can feed mold. On the other hand, the KDP, PUK and KADEK disagreements exist within, in front of the biggest obstacles to leave this war can be a profitable and successful. An independent state will not have already known. But, as the Kurds hope to make Kirkuk a Kurdish center the possible occurrence of a federal structure of autonomous and do not look too hot. With a great chance because it will not let what the Americans nor the Turks. I personally came into the front line against Iraq, the Kurds now fear their future.
-This is what she says in Turkey, Syria and Iran for the parts of Kurdistan under the rule of what does it mean? The problem to grow and also to other countries in South Kurdistan
jump-into-but not a big possibility that this region might be the solution of a confederation bring on the agenda. But now what I see as far as Turkey, nor Iran nor Syria hazırlıklıdırlar it, 'the national immunity' and integrity, constitute the foreground. Kurdistan do not receive word of mouth. These countries are not prepared for is a solution for Kurdistan. Devamından dominance on the federal side of Kurdistan as they are also far from a solution. It also states that after the war in Iraq further strengthened by an endeavor to prevent a Kurdish autonomy and opposed. But despite all this, the auspices of the United States or a state or autonomy under the supervision of the formation of a structure may occur. In such an environment problems between the Kurds, this time may constitute an obstacle to such a formation. Due to internal problems of the Kurds to deal with each other, will have an autonomous structure, a weak state such a great cause decreased olabilirler. / by Rashad Ozkan
1 April 2003/Politika/Kurdistan-post
0 comments:
Post a Comment