Denys points are well taken.   The word "proof" for disarmament is
problematical if you want a scientific or purely logical sense of proof.
Large elements of disarmament therefor have to do with good-faith and
accurate disclosure; free access for inspection and verification.

>I would urge you to read UN resolution 1441.  It's all in there.

UN Security Council Resolutions:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions.html

1441:
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenEleme
nt

The resolution stated that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of
its
obligations under relevant resolutions".   1441 therefor decided "to afford
Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament
obligations under
relevant resolutions of the Council".

Deplores "the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international
monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant
resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite
of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate,
unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring,
Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC)".

"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its
commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism,
pursuant to
resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to
provide
access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of
assistance
in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999)
to
return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals
wrongfully
detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,"

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a
ceasefire
would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution,
including
the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"

"Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without
conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991)
and other relevant resolutions ..."

My comment.  After four months I wonder what a "final opportunity" for "full
and immediate compliance" means in UN diplomatic terms.

Cortlandt Wilson
(650) 966-8555

>-----Original Message-----
>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>Behalf Of Denys Beauchemin
>Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 1:21 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: A Canadian View Point
>
>
>Well, I am not one of the pro-war crowd, I just want it to finally
>end.  If you want someone from the pro-war crowd you will have to
>wait for an answer from France or Germany.
>
>However, I can answer your question.  The first thing to do is to
>read UN resolution 1441.  It is quite explicit and detailed on
>what needs to be done to prove that Iraq has no weapons of mass
>destruction.  You can also read the 16 other resolutions prior to
>that one.
>
>In an earlier post, I made allusion to how this process worked for
>South Africa in the 1990s.  They meticulously detailed their
>inventory before starting the eradication process and then fully
>documented the destruction process and supplied all the information
>to the UN inspectors.  The inspectors could go anywhere at any
>time, by themselves and talk to anybody.  They did not have to go on
>a scavenger hunt while weapons were moved around.
>
>I would urge you to read UN resolution 1441.  It's all in there.
>
>Denys
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>Behalf Of Wayne R. Boyer
>Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:09 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: OT: A Canadian View Point
>
>In a message dated 3/17/03 10:05:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
>> Johnson replied, "I don't have to prove it. Now that I've said
>it he has to
>> disprove
>> it."
>>
>
>Kinda like how Saddam has to prove that he does NOT have WMDs?  A question
>for the pro-war crowd: If you were Saddam and you did NOT have any
>WMDs - how
>would you 'prove' it to Bush, etc?
>
>Wayne
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *