Maternity Leave Canada Government

The United Nations, India and the Gulf War (1990-2001)

Note: This article was written in 2001

Background
Throughout history, the Gulf region has been spread with all sorts of blows, conflict, crises and wars. The overthrow of Mossadegh (1951), the Suez crisis (1956), the Six Day War (1967), the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) were some crises that have marked the region since the Second World War.

The Gulf crisis of 1990 was the result of many long-standing disputes between Iraq and Kuwait, in addition to other causes such as the emergence of Iraq as a great military power after the Iran-Iraq, Saddam Hussein's ambitions in the absence of democratic ideals in the Arab world and relations within the Arab Gulf.

When Iraq became independent In 1932 he began to assert territorial claims against Kuwait. Iraq claimed that Kuwait was under the Ottoman Empire as a neighborhood of Basra, and that since Iraq is the successor of the empire, Kuwait naturally becomes a part of Iraq. Before 1990, Iraq tried to integrate Iraq into Kuwait on at least two occasions. The first occurred in the late 1930s when King Ghazi I made applications unify Kuwait with Iraq. But once the request died when the King Ghazi died in a mysterious accident April 4, 1939.

The second occasion occurred in 1961 when Great Britain and Kuwait has officially ended their relationship in Treaty in January 1899. [1] in Iraq, General Abdul Karim Qasim again made an attempt to integrate Iraq into Kuwait. On July 2, 1961, the Council United Nations Security met to discuss the problem. Under paragraph 2, Article 35 of the United Nations, the both Iraq and Kuwait has submitted its complaint to the UN. The Security Council, however, could not diffuse the crisis or adopt a resolution due to the use of its veto by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union went with the view of Iraq and said that "the task more immediate Security Council in this situation is to condemn the acts of the colonial power and to take measures that lead to immediate withdrawal of troops United Kingdom from Kuwait. [2] In the absence of any appropriate agreement at the UN, the Arab League intervened and proposed an alternative solution to the problem. He accepted the independence of Kuwait and has vowed to defend Kuwait against external threats or aggression. Iraq, but never really accepted the independence of Kuwait.

With the passage of time, the dispute simmered down. Triggering the Iran-Iraq almost totally eclipsed the issue of Kuwait and Iraq and the question was put to a rest uncomfortable during war. Although several meetings took place between Kuwait and Iraq, the issue could be resolved and he continued until August 2, 1990, when the dispute took a new turn completely.

In the months preceding the invasion, Saddam has made several charges threat against Kuwait including the extraction of Iraqi crude oil by Kuwait in the oil field Rumailah and illegal possession of Kuwait Warba, and Bubiyan Failaka Island. Saddam accused Kuwait of "overproduction" of oil, which Iraq is considered "… a kind of war against Iraq." This overproduction, Saddam claimed, depressed oil prices and revenues raised from Kuwait, which has done nothing to help Iraq. It is cautioned against Kuwait that its overproduction was "a stab in the poison of Iraq back" and was "an evil against Iraq … an American plot to drain oil revenues of Iraq … "Saddam has also threatened to use force" … for arranging things … cut a gorge some is better than cutting the means of living. "[3]

Crisis
Things are finally came to head after the meeting in Jeddah on July 31 did not and 1 August 1990 between Iraq and Kuwait, where, August 2, 1990, 100,000 Iraqi soldiers and 300 tanks rolled into Kuwait, with little resistance. Iraq has announced that he would retire soon after if the situation stabilizes and when the Free Provisional Government of Kuwait, "wants to withdraw. [4] The announcement proved to be a complete sham because August 28 1990, Kuwait was formally annexed to Iraq and said that the 19th province of Iraq. On Nov. 4, it was announced that Kuwait "No longer exists and that the world should forget the independence of Kuwait.

After several resolutions were adopted by the Council UN Security condemning the action and the imposition of sanctions on Iraq, Resolution 678 was finally adopted on 29 November 1990, allows coalition forces to "restore peace and security in the region" by using "all means necessary. "The Council, in what he called a" pause of goodwill "in Iraq was given until January 15, 1991 to end its occupation of Kuwait.

In the intervening period, many diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis have been conducted. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the League of Arab States, the European Community, France and four permanent members of Security Council (Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia and Yemen) have submitted their plans for peace, but because of the lack of international support, no viable solution could be found. On 9 January 1991 talks between U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz made no progress either. A last minute effort by the Secretary General of the United Nations was also, unfortunately without success. "While Secretary General's efforts yielded no results and that the period has ended, he noted, "Nobody and no country can, except with a heavy heart – the use of "other necessary means" involved in resolution 678 (1990), knowing in advance that the tragic consequences unpredictable and can follow. "

What followed next was the transformation of the operation "Desert Shield" to "Operation Desert Storm. "On January 17, for the next six weeks, the Iraqi military installations and other facilities were bombed. This has had serious consequences on the Iraqi military power, because when the ground offensive began at 4 am local time on February 24, 1991, the Coalition forces under American command has encountered little resistance and easily able to liberate Kuwait, February 27, 1991.

The United Nations and the Gulf Crisis
Soon after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Security Council met in an emergency meeting to discuss the issue. The Council at its meeting of 2932 on August 2 199o, adopted resolution 660. The resolution said the Security Council was "alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait … by military forces of Iraq, " and it "condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait" and demanded that "Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally." This resolution was adopted with 14 votes for and one abstention (Yemen). The League of Arab States (LAS), Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Conference Organization (OIC), Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the Nordic States, the European Union (WEU), NATO, OPEC, the Bank The World and ICAO, in their own terms has also condemned the invasion.

As Iraq has failed to comply with the resolution Security Council 660, the Security Council, August 6 adopted Resolution 661, which imposes mandatory arms and economic sanctions against Iraq. Iraq, however, calls it "unfair and unjust", "hasty", and to starve the Iraqi people. [5] This resolution was adopted with Cuba and Yemen abstained.

Iraq has continued to rebel and August 7, 1990, declared its "full inseparable and eternal merger "with Kuwait. With no sign of Iraqi withdrawal or compliance with resolutions 660 and 661, Resolution 662 was adopted August 9, 1990 which declared the annexation of Kuwait "Void." Two other resolutions were adopted by the After the first month of the crisis. On 18 August the Security Council adopted resolution 664 which requires the release of foreign nationals detained Iraq. Resolution 665, adopted August 25, calls on Member States to cooperate with the Kuwaiti Government in exile and to stop and search all vessels bound for or leaving Iraq.

Resolution 666, adopted September 13, 1990, addressed to the humanitarian situation in Iraq. He led the Sanctions Committee to pay particular attention to "children under 15, pregnant women, maternity cases, the sick and elderly "In determining the food supply of the civilian population.

The closure of all diplomatic missions in Kuwait prompted the Security Council adopts Resolution 667 of September 16 have expressed their indignation of the Council and its demands for "the immediate release of these foreign nationals, and all citizens "and" protect the safety and well-being of diplomatic and consular personnel and premises in Kuwait.

Resolution 669 of September 24, 1990, "says the (sanctions) committee … with the task of examining requests for assistance under the provisions of Article 50 "of the United Nations Charter [6]. The next day, September 25, Resolution 670 confirmed that the sanctions against Iraq "Applies to all means of transport including aircraft." She called on Member States to impose an air embargo on Iraq , and Kuwait.

On October 29, 1990, the Council, in Resolution 674 demands that Iraq "refrain from any third-country nationals hostage "and put an end to his abuse and oppression of a Kuwaiti or foreign nationals. On November 28, 1990, another resolution was adopted by the Council. Resolution 677 condemns Iraq's attempt to change the demographic composition of the population of Kuwait and the destruction of records population.

Iraq refuses to comply with a Council resolutions eventually led to the adoption of Resolution 678 November 29, 1990, which authorizes the use of "all necessary means" to uphold and implement the resolutions. This resolution was adopted with 12 votes for, 2 against (Cuba and Yemen) and 1 abstention (China). Although the words "use of force" were not used, it is clearly implied that the U.S. maintained. The United States said after the vote, "Today's resolution is very clear. The words allow the use of force. [7] The Council gave "Iraq one last chance as a pause of goodwill" to January 15, 1991 to comply with resolutions. This resolution was the first resolution since June 27, 1950, when the Security Council adopted a resolution authorizing the use of force in Korea.

There followed a flurry of diplomatic activities by the various countries and regional organizations. The Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar, the United Nations last efforts to persuade Iraq to withdraw failed. Then the deadline of January 15, 1991 has expired. On January 16, nothing happened, and as the calm before the storm. Then all hell broke loose on January 17 with allied forces flying the Iraqi positions. The early campaigns of the air has been reported by the United States in the Security Council the same day [8]. Saddam Hussein announced on radio that Iraq "Mother of all battles" had begun. On January 22, 1991, the Secretary-General asked Iraq to comply with Council resolutions. Later, he urged Iraq to "this tragic situation on the road a peaceful solution. [9] Several private meetings of the Security Council took place during February and March. But these meetings could not give any fruitful results.

On the morning of February 24, 1991, ground offensive began, and soon, February 27, Kuwait was liberated. On February 27, Iraq announced that it agreed to comply with Security Council resolution 660 of 1990 and all other resolutions [10]. Iraq also informed the Security Council the withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait, while adding that "America and other the pro-abuser "continued their attack against Iraqi forces withdrawal [11]. The operations of the coalition were arrested at midnight 27-28 February 1991. On March 4, 1991 the Kuwaiti government has taken office in Kuwait City.

Looking back to Resolution 678, we can find inconsistencies and discrepancies in its provisions. The wording of the resolution – "The use (of) all necessary means" was too vague, first, which led to a number of interpretations. The United States have interpreted as authorizing the use force. We can say that this was a victory for the United States when the resolution was adopted. In a speech before the resolution was voted, U.S. Representative to the Security Council said: "If Iraq does not reverse its course peacefully, then other measures necessary, including including the use of force must be authorized. [12] It can also be seen that the resolution was not in accordance with Chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Nations if the resolution said it was acting "under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations." For example, Article 42 (under Chapter VII) states that the forces can be used only when economic sanctions are inadequate. Article 46 states that " implementation plans of the armed force must be taken by the Security Council support the Committee staff. "These provisions have not been followed by all the terms of Resolution 678. He did not give enough time for the sanctions to take effect. It was also the Indian perspective. [13] The resolution also makes no mention of Military Staff Committee. In addition, with the abstention of China resolution, he did not get the necessary agreement of the five permanent members.

On February 27, 1991, he was President Bush ordered the cease-fire and declared "victory". The Secretary General, February 28 said, "We hope this is the beginning the end of this terrible tragedy. '

On March 2, 1991, resolution 686 was adopted by 11 votes to 1 against (Cuba) and 3 abstentions (China, India and Yemen). While reaffirming that all resolutions adopted before continuing to have "full effect", she asked several preconditions ceasefire that Iraq was required to implement immediately. He also acknowledged that during the implementation of resolution 686, the right to use "All necessary measures" under resolution 678 will be "valid".

Resolution 687 was adopted April 3, 1991 has finally and officially declared a ceasefire. This resolution was adopted by 12 votes to one (Cuba) with two abstentions (Ecuador and Yemen). Some key provisions of the resolution includes the guarantee of the border and the distribution of islands between Iraq and Kuwait, the deployment an observation unit of the United Nations to monitor the demilitarized zone, destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles, the UN inspection of Iraqi biological, chemical and missiles, the return of all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, the payment of compensation by Iraq, the continuation of sanctions, the return of all Kuwaitis and nationals third countries, abandoning the practice of terrorism and the declaration of cease-fire.

Iraq called the present resolution "unfair" and "Iniquitous" and was "an unprecedented attack" on Iraq [14]. But Iraq, with no other choice, had accept the resolution April 6, 1991 [15]. This resolution has also been criticized as follows: "This was not a negotiated agreement, but made unilaterally imposed on Iraq. Peace has been dictated. The Council exceeded its authority because its Charter empowers Nowhere in the UN to impose a settlement on the parties to a dispute. [16] With the acceptance of resolution in Iraq, the cease-fire officially came into effect.

Post-war situation and the UN
Shortly after the ceasefire, the UN has taken measures to actively participate in reconstruction and rehabilitation in Iraq and Kuwait. Several UN missions and the teams went Iraq and Kuwait to assess the humanitarian situation. Their reports have highlighted the hunger, thirst, disease, devastation, destruction and death. According to a report, 170,000 children under five die in 1991 because of war and economic sanctions. It was noted, "The situation was absurd. While the UN and other agencies have been faced with totally inadequate resources to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq, another UN agency, the Security Council insisted that Iraq be denied the opportunity to sell its own oil to buy food, medicine and supplies. "[17]

A direct effect of the resolution for a ceasefire in particular the continuation of sanctions was that "he began a massive attack on the Iraqi civilian population – refuse the means to rebuild infrastructure shattered completely social and industrial, denied uncontaminated water drinking, denied medical facilities, and deprived of food in sufficient quantity. The policy of the United States was one of the most rural full biological warfare – denying relief to a patient and people are dying of hunger – in modern times. "[18]

Some resolutions have been adopted later this year – 688 (April 5), 692 (May 20), 697, 699 and 700 (June 17), 706 and 707 (August 15), 712 (Sept. 19), 713 (Sept. 25); 715 (11 October) – at the situation after the war and repair in Iraq.

In retrospect, we can say that the Gulf War has not a UN war to everyone. The United Nations has been marginalized in every opportunity. It was the United States held the operation. The United States, it seemed, was clearly intended to use force right from the beginning. Even before the invasion of August 2, 1990, the United States having knowledge of the threat does not warn the UN and made no effort to stop it. He never directly negotiated with Iraq after the "storm" or the UN asked to act as mediator [19].

When the war finally came, the Secretary General noted that "… the war in the Gulf of the UN is not war, and the World Council has no control over it … we are informed through the Security Council on military operations, but after they have occurred. "[20] It has also said, "We can not consider it as a UN war in the sense that there is no UN flag. They are not UN peacekeepers. There is no control of the UN military operations. "

Several peace plans have been developed by various quarters, even from Iraq. However, none of them could manage to bring the war to an end, for they are rejected by the United States. The UN could do nothing. "The Americans had used the Security Council when it suits them, deliver them in session again and again, when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the acceptance of resolutions critical of Iraq to ratify his own condemnation of Iraq. But once the war began, the Americans with the support of the British enthusiast, has done everything they could to prevent the Security Council plays no role, and when they failed to hold the line, makes his work has been in secret. Perez de Cuellar, who should have been a man the center of events, was never consulted and never informed of what was happening. "[21]

India and the Gulf crisis
Historically, there has always been good relations between India and Iraq. Therefore, when Iraq invaded Kuwait August 2, 1990, India was in a great dilemma. Neither India do not want to offend Saddam Hussein did not want to go against UN. India has decided to follow the middle line for some time by making a statement that "India is opposed the use of force to any form of relations between states. "

The major objective of policies in India by Prime Minister VP Singh was the repatriation of Indians stranded in Kuwait 170.000 to 180.000. From August, Air India started operations air mass and October, nearly 160,000 Indians were returned home. VP Singh government later condemned the invasion of Iraq and demanded the immediate withdrawal Iraqi forces from Kuwait. However, India has not taken further steps to resolve the crisis. After Resolution 661 was adopted, India imports crude oil from Iraq arrested. This has greatly affected the earnings of India and India had as the United Nations for help [22].

The November 1990, there was a change of government in India. VP Singh was replaced by Chandrasekhar Janata (S). The government has remained too Chandrasekhar a passive spectator of the Gulf crisis. There was no active diplomatic effort on the part of India diffuse the crisis. However, there have been some changes in the Indian position today. There was a general feeling that India follow the U.S. line. India now accused Saddam Hussein of Iraq and the crisis.

Just before the air campaign, the Minister of Foreign Affairs VC Shukla and Vice-Minister Foreign Affairs Digvijay Singh has visited several countries to solve the problem, but in vain. When the war finally came, India has maintained a remarkable silence. The Indian peace proposal deaf ear. The late Rajiv Gandhi was also highlighted its peae-package while criticizing the government to reduce India a viewer "unfortunate". His focus was on replacing the US-led coalition with a UN force and the withdrawal of Iraqi forces [23].

Adding to the confusion was the speech that U.S. planes were refueled in Bombay from January 9, 1991. It caused great political upheaval in India, where the main political parties have begun to point their fingers at one another. The Congress, the Janata Dal and leftist parties severely criticized the government for an ally of the United States. The BJP, on the other, with government support arguing that India should support the United Nations and provide all assistance to the coalition forces [24].

Analysis pointed out that the decision the government to allow the refueling was due to improved relations between the U.S. and India. In addition, the economic situation India had forced it to seek an IMF loan of 1.8 billion dollars. Then, three days after the loan has been sanctioned, the fueling began. Nobody thought it was a coincidence [25].

Although the government has resisted and the tenacious volley of criticism for some time, the Congress led to the threat to withdraw support from the government to stop the refueling facility planned for the Americans.

The Non-Aligned Movement also came to much criticism for its actions (or more appropriately, inaction). Iraq and Kuwait are the two members of NAM. The first high-level meeting of the Movement to discuss the Gulf crisis took place September 11, 1990. This meeting was followed by the Indian Foreign Minister IK Gujral. It was announced that Nam established the group as a catalyst "A" to bring the crisis to an end.

The Belgrade meeting Non-Aligned, 11 February 1991 has produced no results. But it was decided they should send a team on both sides. The team will visit Baghdad on Feb. 23 should be composed of foreign ministers of India, Cuba, Iran and Yugoslavia. The start of the ground war, however, blew the plane into oblivion. NAM could not play any role as the focus was put on the UN and the United States.

India role in the war fared no better. When the invasion of Iraq took place, India was not a member of the Security Council, so he did not participate in any meetings of the Security Council and UN resolutions. But India has expressed its support for the UN. dilemma of India began only after 1 January 1991, when she became a member of the Council security. India abstained and China and Yemen in the first vote of the first resolution, after March 2 678 1991.

India voted for the resolution ceasefire (687) after certain clauses have been modified with its insistence. India has some reservations provisions on the border between Iraq and Kuwait and the provisions relating to the destruction of Iraqi nuclear weapons because India had apprehensions they have implications for the issue of Kashmir and India's own nuclear program [26].

During the war, India has been criticized for not playing any decisive role, and seems to be only interested in the repatriation of Indians stranded in Kuwait and in pursuit of its oil supplies. In addition, India has not taken decisive action in regional leader and as an important member of Movement to publicize the crisis. The provision of facilities for refueling and its subsequent withdrawal also showed indecision of India and the reluctance to play a proactive role in international politics. It also appears that the role of India "… has finished in the resolution or Iraq or Kuwait, and certainly not our own country. "[27]

However, to achieve a balanced assessment of role India in crisis, certain factors must be understood. First, the Government of India has been a minority government. The Janata (S) had only 68 of 473 members in the Lok Sabha. The support of Congress with 193 members has been essential to its survival. Thus, it was unable to act decisive. The subsequent shift in Indian foreign policy towards the US-led coalition must also be considered in light of the economic situation in India. This change may also have been caused by some elements within government who are pro-American. In addition, India, through NAM could not act because of the attitude of the coalition forces under U.S. and that of Saddam Hussein.

The developments since the war (until 2001): a chronology
1992: The UN Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 (1991) had allowed Iraq to sell oil worth up to $ 1,600 million during the six months period, the turnover from which should be controlled by the UN. Iraq in 1992 rejected the terms of the resolution and withdrew from all negotiations on this issue. Resolution 778 was adopted October 2, 1992 to put pressure on Iraq to accept resolutions 706 and 712. Iraqi request lift the sanctions has been rejected.

1993: In 1993, UN inspectors has arrived in Iraq. Another team abruptly left Iraq After Iraq refused the establishment of surveillance equipment at its premises missile tests. For the rest of the year talks between the UN and Iraq have remained inconclusive.

1994: In March 1994, another Iraqi request to lift the sanctions was again rejected. With this, a split emerged within the Council. Russia, France and China are in favor of lifting sanctions. On October, in an apparent gesture to attract attention to its fate, Iraq moved forces towards Kuwait. Iraq later announced he would retire. Driven by this, the Council passed Resolution 949 on October 10 that warns against Iraq to stop using its forces against its neighbors or UN. In December, it was announced by the head of UNSCOM believed that Iraq no longer have any nuclear or ballistic weapons.

1995 In 1995, another resolution (986) has been adopted which aims at the partial resumption of Iraqi oil exports. In celebrating the 50th anniversary UN in New York during 22-24 October 1995, the Iraqi Vice President Tariq Aziz said: "unipolar" leads to "application Early sanctions … and the use of armed force. "What" private … people of their fundamental rights … "and led to" the death of thousands of children, women and the elderly because of lack of food and medicines. "[28]

1996: Early of January 1996, Iraq has indicated its willingness to engage in a dialogue on "oil cons food agreement with the United Nations. After several rounds, it was finally agreed that up to four billion dollars of Iraqi oil would be sold per year to buy food and medicine. On March 27, the Council adopted resolution 1051 which established a system to monitor all exports to Iraq that could be used for the production of weapons of mass destruction. This was apparently motivated by the announcement by the head of UNSCOM Rolf Ekeus that Iraq was in possession of missiles and biological weapons.

1997: After the deliberate violation of the no-fly zone Iraq in April and then noticed the President of the United States that Saddam is the greatest threat and the refusal of Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to work, Council adopted a new resolution (1115), June 21, 1997, warning Iraq that more sanctions may come. In October, the Revolutionary Command Council criticized the high proportion of Americans with UNSCOM. Resolution 1137 was adopted which warned Iraq to stop the eviction Staff of the United States. In December, Iraq suspended oil exports.

1998: Oil exports from Iraq have resumed in January. Security Council resolution 1153 adopted on February 20 six months doubled the income allowed the Iraqi government 5.2 billion dollars. Resolution June 1175 continued the plan of distribution of humanitarian supplies. Iraq has also improved its production of oil. Just as it seems that things will improve, the "discovery" of VX ruined everything. In December, the United States and United Kingdom have launched attacks on Iraq. The demonstration attracted widespread throughout the Middle East.

1999: In January, after the French proposal Replacement of the Special Commission has been challenged by the United States, Iraq parliament has voted to waive all previous pledges the Security Council. In March, reports came that the CIA used the Special Commission as a cover for operations in Iraq. Further applications have been made to replace UNSCOM with a new surveillance system. In December, the Council adopted resolution 1284 which replaced the Special Commission Observatory of the United Nations, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), which was responsible for monitoring Iraq.

2000 In January, IAEA inspectors went into Iraq. The sanctions imposed on Iraq has had a profound impact on the civilian population. In February, the ICRC reported that infant mortality has tripled since 1990, and the water has deteriorated. Air strikes continued [29].

2001: In mid-January, the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, to mark the 10th anniversary of the Gulf War said: "Kuwait deserved invasion "and warned that Baghdad would fight if the United States continued its policy against Iraq under the new American president George W. Bush [30]. February 16, had about two dozen American and British bombed five "military targets" in and around Baghdad in the biggest strike against Iraq since 1998. In response, Iraq announced that "… their aggression will achieve nothing but failure." [31] This strike is came under criticism from China, Russia, France, India, Egypt, Syria, Canada and Turkey, which held that the United States and Great Britain had exceeded their line. They agreed that this must be authorized by the Security Council.
Prime Minister AB Vajpayee slams U.S. for its air raid and said that India was in favor of lifting sanctions, and that the no-fly zones "outside the scope of Security Council resolutions. "[32]

Again, February 22, U.S. aircraft strike Iraqi targets Air Defence in Northern Iraq. These strikes were followed by large demonstrations with protesters calling for jihad.

Conclusion
As the current process of sanctions, strikes, inspection, verification and love to continue, it is very likely that Iraq could use in his favor. Using the strategy of "sympathy" can get Iraq oil deals France, Russia and China. In addition, with more Frequent attacks on Iraq, allies of the Gulf War are now gone over to Iraq, Egypt and Syria had already signed trade agreements with Iraq. Even within the Security Council, the crack has become more vocal in their criticism of the embargo Iraq. The Iraqi people do not have much choice except to rally behind Saddam Hussein [33].

However, the United States and United Kingdom are still very firm in their commitment to contain Saddam Hussein, which was characterized by them as the most dangerous man in the world. On the other First, Iraq is determined to stay rebel. Iraq now says that the UN weapons inspectors will never be allowed to return in the country [34]. Meanwhile, the Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the Security Council to find common ground on Iraq.

It is now very important that both sides change their attitudes before talking about peace. To ensure a lasting peace, it is imperative to strike cause instability. To do this, the Persian Gulf countries should be well integrated, commit to confidence-building measures to create the regional alliance and security policy and defense build non-offensive [35].

Even after ten years, the crisis in the Gulf is unresolved. It is fair to ask when it will be. For now, however, the end of the crisis is in sight.

June 2001

ENDNOTES

[1] Agreement between the British government and the Sheikh of Kuwait regarding non-receipt of foreign representatives and non-transfer of territory foreign powers or subjects, January 23, 1899 at Lauterpacht et al (eds) The Kuwait crisis: basic documents (1991)

[2] Council Security Official Records (SCOR), Sixteenth Year, 958th meeting, 5 July 1961, by 55, 65

[3] Iraq TV, 20 hours (IST) July 17, 1990. Quoted in Gazi Ibdewi Abdulghafour, Tragedy: the invasion of Kuwait. Genesis, consequences and resolution of conflicts (New Delhi: Lancers Books, 1993) p. 67

[4] S / PV, 2932 August 2, 1990

[5] United Nations Document S/20503, 13 August 1990

[6] Article 50 of the UN Charter states that "If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, that is a member of the United Nations or not, which is facing economic difficulties due to special performance these measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council regarding the solution of problems. "

[7] S / PV 2963, November 29, 1990

[8] United Nations Document S/22090, 17 January 1991

[9] UN Document S/22172, 30 January 1991

[10] United Nations Document S/22275 and S/22276, 27 February 1991

[11] United Nations Document S/22274, 27 February 1991 and S/22288, 28 February 1991

[12] Nations document United S / PV 2963, November 29, 1990

[13] JK Baral and JN Mahanty, "India and the Gulf Crisis: The response of a minority government, "Pacific Affairs, Vol. 65, No. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 368-84.

[14] United Nations Document S/22496, 6 April 1991

[15] Document UN S/22480, 11 April 1991

[16] Gazi Ibdewi Abdulghafour, tragedy, P. 139

[17] Geoff Simons, The Scourging of Iraq: sanctions, the National Law and Justice (Basingstoke, Macmillan, 2nd edition, 1998) p. 52

[18] Geoff Simons, Iraq-Primus Inter Pariahs: A Chronology of crisis, 1997-1998 (Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1999) p. 54

[19] Pierre Salinger, "The United States, the nited Nations and the Gulf War, the Middle East Journal, Vol. 49, No. 4, Fall 1995, pp. 593-613

[20] Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar, in an interview to PTI-TV February 5, 1991

Bulloch [21] John Harvey and Morris, Saddam's war: The origins of the conflict in Kuwait and the International Response (London, Faber and Faber, 1991) p. 200

[22] United Nations Document S/21711, September 5, 1990

[23] The Times of India (New Delhi), January 21, 1991.

Mohanty [24] JK banal and JN "India and the Gulf Crisis", p. 374-75

[25] Ibid. P. 377

[26] Ibid. P. 383

[27] Deccan Herald, April 19, 1991

[28] Speech of Mr. Taha Marouf, Vice-President in Iraq to the UN than 50: Statements by world leaders, New York, 22-24 October 1995 (NY, UN, 1996)

[29] Middle East and North Africa 2001 (London, 2000 Europa Publications, 47th edition, 2001, 2000) pp. 578-599

[30] Hindustan Times (New Delhi) January 16, 2001

[31] Hindustan Times (New Delhi), February 17, 2001

[32] Times of India (New Delhi), February 18, 2001

[33] Times of India (New Delhi) February 21, 2001.

[34] Hindustan Times (New Delhi), February 28, 2001

Naaz [Farah 35], "Security in the Persian Gulf, "Strategic Analysis, Vol. XXIV, No. 12, March 2001, pp. 2257-2271

About the Author

The author has a Ph. D. in International Politics from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
His areas of interest are Southeast Asia, Southern Africa and Latin America and writes mainly on the politics of regional integration in these areas. He also writes on issues pertaining to South Asia, particularly on India’s Northeast.

Government in Canada $22.77 Government in Canada

Government In Canada $22.77 Government In Canada

Government Of Canada $21.45 Government Of Canada

State Maternity/family Leave Law $11.78 State Maternity/family Leave Law

Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada $33.6 Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada

---