PressInfo # 175 - USA og Kuwait underminerer FN ved at gå ind iden demilitariserede zone pågrænsen mellen Irak og Kuwait

Måske er det ikke FNs mest kendte fredsmission, men vi kan være sikre på snart at høre mere om den, idet den befinder sig på grænsen mellem Irak og Kuwait. Navnet er UNIKOM (UN Irak-Kuwait Observation Mission), http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unikom/index.html. Den blev etableret ved FNs Sikkerhedsråds-resolution 687, i 1991. Da TFF var på analyserejse i Irak i januar i år, besøgte vi denne FN-mission på pladsen.

Rapporter fra de seneste dage fortæller at bevæbnede USA-marinesoldater er gået ind i denne demilitariserede zone, DMZ, mellem Irak og Kuwait. På Kuwait-siden er indhegningen blevet skåret op og 7 porte sat ind, tilsyneladende for at forberede en invasion og besætelse af Irak.

Vi, forfatterne, er ikke eksperter i folkeret og kan ikke bedømme om dette er et brud på en Sikkerhedsrådsbestemmelse og/eller andre internationale love, eller om der et eller andet sted med småt står noget, der kan legitimere dette under visse betingelser. Men vi betvivler det. Det er

meget svært at forstå hvordan bevæbnet personel, som forberedelse af angreb på et andet FN-medlemsland, kan trænge ind i en af FN afmilitariseret zone, og at dette skulle være legalt.

Men vigtigere er at det utvivlsomt et alvorligt politiskt og normativt slag imod FNs autoritet og integritet. Det underminerer både Sikkerhedsrådet og den livsvigtige, højkompetente UNIKOM-delegation på stedet. Desuden destabiliserer det yderligere hele regionen, og signalerer til den irakiske regering at den vil blive angrebet ligemeget hvad den gør for at undgå krig. Det er slående at denne enehændige aktion ikke har sat nogen sind i kog, og at så godt som ingen international debat omkring den har fundet sted.

Spørgsmål der bør stilles.

Vi mener at denne udvikling vækker en række vigtige spørgsmål angående global fred:

1) Havde USA søgt tilladelse fra FN inden de gik ind i området? Og hvis det er tilfældet: På hvilket grundlag fik USA tilladelse til at gå ind med våben?

2) Når FN oplyser Sikkerhedsrådet om dette brud på reglerne, hvad kan det da stille op mod at et af de faste medlemmer ignorerer en beslutning taget af samme råd?

3) Kan det moralsk accepteres, og være i overensstemmelse med folkerettens ånd og bogstav såvel som FN-Chartret, at et af FN-medlemslandene alene militariserer en af FN demilitariseret zone? Hvis dette foregår som forberedelse til et angreb på et andet medlemsland, kan der da findes omstændigheder der på nogen måde gør det legitimt?

4) Må Irak – et FN-medlemsland, der givetvis aldrig har underskrevet beslutninger i Sikkerhedsrådet – legalt og politisk være forpligtet til at opfylde sådanne, når et af de permanente medlemslande, der HAR underskrevet Sikkerhedsråds-beslutninger ikke respekterer dem?

5) Man skulle mene at et medlemsland, ved at gå ind i et FN demilitariseret område med våben og med hensigten at invadere et andet medlemsland, udgør en trussel mod international fred og sikkerhed. Hvis sådan noget sker kan Generalsekretæren vælge at “gøre Sikkerhedsrådet opmærksom på enhver sag der i hans øjne forekommer at true opretholdelsen af international fred og sikkerhed.” (Artikkel 99 i FN-chartret). Hvad er generalsekretærens mening om denne sag, i hvilken et medlemsland med magt trænger ind i et område, som den organisation han leder har fastsat andre bestemmelser for?

6) Hvilke forpligtelser har FN-medlemmet Kuwait som værtsland for UNIKOM? Ved at lade USA-tropper gå ind på sin side af det demilitariserede område, gør det sig da ikke skyldig til brud på Sikkerhedsrådets bestemmelse og UNIKOMs mandat? Og skulle Kuwait så kunne fortsætte med at modtage 25% af alle Iraks olieindkomster i krigserstatning, hvis det, som det fremgår, har medvirket til forberedelserne af en ny aggression mod Irak?

7) Hvad hvis Bagdad opfatter det at man er trængt ind i zonen som yderligere en trussel og, i henhold til retten til selvforsvar (FN-chartrets artikkel 51), anser det nødvendigt at gå ind i det FN-demilitariserede område fra sin side?

Hvordan kan det være at stort set ingen stille sådanne spørgsmål? Har Bush-regimets arrogance, dets systematiske mistillid til internationale forhandlinger, normer og love og dets “vi-gør-som-vi-lyster” politik haft sådan en gennemslagskraft at debat simpelthen forstummer?

USA peger konstant på at Irak igen og igen har brudt Sikkerhedsrådets bestemmelser. Det påstår at rådets troværdighed er i fare hvis dets bestemmelser ikke bakkes op med beslutsomhed, om nødvendigt med magt. I dette tilfælde ser det faktiskt ud som om USA ikke bryder sig det mindste om sine egne underskrifter på Sikkerhedsrådsbestemmelser.

Baggrund

Det følgende er uddrag af UNIKOMs hjemmeside:

Sikkerhedsrådet gav UNIKOM et mandat til at overvåge DMZ og Khawr’Abd Allah’s vandveje mellem Irak og Kuwait, at modvirke trusler mod sikkerheden og at notere enhver fjendtlig handling sat igang fra det ene lands territorium mod det andet.

Observatørerne i UNIKOM bærer ikke våben. Ansvaret for opretholdelse af lov og orden i DMZ hviler på Iraks og Kuwaits regeringer, der gennemfører dette ved politiposteringer i deres respektive del af zonen. Politiet har kun tilladelse til at bære håndvåben.

I 1993 udvidede Sikkerhedsrådet, gennem dets bestemmelse 807 (1993) UNIKOMs opgaver til også at omfatte aktiv handling for at modvirke eller tilbagevise

a) mindre overtrædelser af DMZ; b) indtrang på grænseområdet mellem Irak og Kuwait af f.eks. civile eller politifolk; og c) problemer opstået gennem tilstedeværelse af irakiske instalationer og irakiske borgeres ejendomme i DMZ på Kuwait-siden af den nyoprettede grænse. Sikkerhedsrådet udvidede den for UNIKOM tilladte magtanvendelse til 3,645 (tre mekaniserede infanteribatallioner

inclusive støtteenheder) og bad generalsekretæren om at gennemføre en gradvis udplacering af disse yderligere enheder. Ved at overholde Afsnit VII, demonstrerede det internationale samfund at det

ville handle med fasthed hvis Irak skulle prøve på at angribe Kuwait igen. For yderligere at understrege dette enedes de fem permanente medlemmer af rådet, for første gang i en fredsbevarende operation, om at installere militære observatører.

Den 31 december 2002 var der 1,105 uniformeret personel, sammensat af 193 militærobservatører og 912 soldater, støttet af 63 internationale civilansatte samt 164 civilansatte fra lokalområdet. De kom fra 32 lande, bl.a. USA, Storbritanien, Danmark og Sverige.

Det følgende er en kort reportage fra Washington Post den 7.marts 2003, s.A16:

Brud begået af USA-tropper er blevet rapporteret.
Kuwait-Irak zone overtrådt, siger FN.

FORENEDE NATIONER, 6.marts – FN har informeret Sikkerhedsrådet om at USA-marinetropper gentagne gange er brudt ind i en FN-beskyttet demilitariseret zone langs med Kuwait-Irak-grænsen og således har krænket den bestemmelse fra 1991 der afsluttede Golfkrigen.

De FN-fredsbevarende styrker der beskytter grænsen “rapporterer mængder af krænkelser af den demilitariserede zone” siden i tirsdags af civilklædte personer, der kører i grupper af fire biler, sagde FN-talsmand Fred Eckhard. Han sagde at nogle af personerne “var bevæbnede og identificerede sig som USA-marinesoldater”. FN-styrken rapporterer også at på tre steder have set at Kuwait har klippet i en elektrisk indhegning oprettet nær grænsen mod Irak. FN rejste spørgsmålet over for Kuwaits regering og udbad sig at blive orienteret om andre lignende aktiviteter.

En Kuwaitisk embedsmand sagde at FN ikke har ret til at rapportere til Sikkerhedsrådet om andre sager end et bevæbnet indtrang på den demilitariserede zone. “Om vi klipper eller flytter et hegn vedkommer ikke andre”, sagde embedsmanden.

Det forblev uklart om de påståede aktiviteter var en del af forberedelserne til en USA-invasion af Irak. Men rådets indberetning retter spørgsmål om hvorvidt en USA-ledet invasion gennem den demilitariserede zone ville være overtrædelse af en af Sikkerhedsrådets bestemmelser.

En embedsmand ved USA-delegationen i FN nægtede at kommentere.

-Colum Lynch

Oversættelse fra engelsk D.Kruckenberg.

© TFF 2003

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Jan Oberg, TFF director April 28, 2026 In this third TFF Peace Pulse, I make the important distinction between the violence and the conflict that violence is a symptom of. If you want peace, focus on the underlying conflict because that is the key to resolution, peacemaking, and a better future for the parties. The West is obsessed with violence, just look around you – and 90+ per cent of the public debate is about military issues and other violence – totally wasted for peace. These Peace Pulses will only be published here a few times. You will also not find them on YouTube and Vimeo because both platforms have blocked TFF and me; you know, peace is dangerous these days. Most TFF’s videos since 2007 are now on Rumble.

Recent Articles

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.

TFF on Substack

Discover more from TFF Transnational Foundation & Jan Oberg.

Most Popular

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Read More
Screenshot-2026-05-15-103534
Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Screenshot-2026-05-12-104023
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (2)
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (1)
Jan Oberg, TFF director April 28, 2026 In this third TFF Peace Pulse, I make the important distinction between the violence and the conflict that violence is a symptom of. If you want peace, focus on the underlying conflict because that is the key to resolution, peacemaking, and a better future for the parties. The West is obsessed with violence, just look around you – and 90+ per cent of the public debate is about military issues and other violence – totally wasted for peace. These Peace Pulses will only be published here a few times. You will also not find them on YouTube and Vimeo because both platforms have blocked TFF and me; you know, peace is dangerous these days. Most TFF’s videos since 2007 are now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551
In contrast to most, we’ll bring alternatives, solutions, hope and strategies for a better future. Times are dangerous, yes, but that only intensifies the need for constructive thinking and action! Jan Oberg, TFF director April 13, 2026 The new TFF Peace Pulse uses video messages in a new way: Max 3-5-minute-long comments, ideas or perhaps mini-lectures, all about peace – positive peace. We launch them today on April 13, 2026 with a carefully crafted visual aesthetic fitting the content. We hope to publish them regularly from now on. We launch Peace Pulse (PP) – for a number of reasons. The world is in chaos, and there are countless reasons to feel concerned, frustrated, even angry. The atmosphere is saturated with doom and gloom, with negative energy and rear‑mirror thinking, while vision, imagination, alternatives, strategies and genuine future‑mindedness remain in short supply. And without them, we simply can’t save the world. Looking at problems from a hundred angles will...
IMG_5165 (1)
PART II — Publishing Peace in a System That Prioritises Militarism Jan Oberg, TFF director April 10, 2026 How TFF Maintains a Daily Voice in a Digital World Built for Noise This article is part of the series “TFF at 40″ and it invites you to learn about Four Decades of Publishing Peace. It takes a look at how a small, people‑financed peace foundation has communicated across four generations of technology — from wax stencils and fax machines to mass email and Substack — and why TFF continues to publish every single day in a system that rewards noise, conflict, and militarism. ◆ What it means to publish peace every single day in a digital system built for 24/7 news and other noise, confrontation, and militarism. How TFF’s independence, continuity, and global readership defy algorithms, donor cycles, and Western media censorhip — and why the Majority World keeps listening. When the...