From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Subject: Iraqi "incursion into Kuwait"
Organization: VTT
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:01:16 GMT

Monday's news was filled with criticism of Iraqis going twice into
Kuwait to remove Iraqi goods.  CNN cleared up some misimpressions that
BBC left (! It usually is the other way round.)  Evidently a group of
about 200 civilians (or "people dressed in civilian clothes" with no
obvious weapons) went to a warehouse and removed Iraqi goods which
were stored there, including 2 Silkworm missiles along with other 
military supplies.

The territory where this warehouse was located was part of Iraq until
after the war against Iraq, at which point it was given to Kuwait as
spoils of war.  Iraq claimed that it was given a deadline of January
15 to remove all of its property from the zone that was taken from it
(and CNN did not challenge the statement, so i presume it is correct),
and merely hired a civilian contractor to do the work.

So it seems to me that the claims that this is an Iraqi incursion are
specious.  None of the reports claims that this was a military mission
or that any weapons were fired or used as threats.  It is just the same
as someone who has been evicted from their home going back to pick up
their property that remained.

The US and Security Council seem to be trying to make a big deal about
this.  I suppose the problem is that they crossed the newly defined
border without authorization from the new owner, Kuwait.

This of course is a problem.  But if the new owner does not allow them
to go in to retrieve what is unarguably their property AND they have
been given a deadline for removing that property the situation has been
arranged so that no matter what they do they are violating one of the
new rules imposed upon them.  So they did what any evicted person would
do if it could be done peacefully, went in and took out their property.

It appears that the US, UK, & France wish to have all the powers of an
occupying force without having to go to the expense of occupation.  They
feel that they have the right to order the Iraqi government to do
anything they choose, and that Iraq MUST obey.  If Iraq objects, trying
to maintain some soverignty over its own territory, the neo-occupiers
use the language of the bully, threats of force.

The neo-occupiers have now ordered Iraq that it may not have defensive
weapons (anti-aircraft missiles) in certain parts of its country.  They
have previously declared zones of the country where Iraq may not fly its
military (?) aircraft.  [With this new "crisis" about antiaircraft
missiles i finally found an answer to a question that i posed to this
group in the fall.  I asked what the restrictions the UN set when it
declared the "no-fly" zone in Iraqi Kurdistan.  It turns out: NONE.  The
UN did not declare any no-fly zone in Iraq; the neo-occupiers did,
without any specific authorization from the UN.  I was surprized at the
time that noone knew the answer.  Would those of you who actually knew,
when i asked, that the UN did not define any no-fly zone please raise 
your hands?]  They fly civilian (and military) planes around ignoring
air traffic control.  They claim the right to go into any govt. building
(such as the Agriculture Minsistry at the time when an investigation by
the US Congress into Reagan-Bush agricultural credit deals was being
persued).  They tell people in the country to rebel against the
government, and the government when they may and when they may not fight
against the thus inspired rebel groups.  They restrict what Iraq may buy
and sell abroad and allow them to sell their major product, oil, only if
they give a certain high percentage off the top to the neo-occupiers.

The UN passed a number of resolutions against Iraq to get them out of
Kuwait.  The purpose of those resolutions was fulfilled when the forces
were withdrawn under fire.  However the neo-occupiers act as if they are
more important than ever willing to use high levels of military force
until every clause of every sentence has been followed to the
interpretation of the victors.  There is no such insistance on the
following of UN resolutions by other countries be they South Africa,
Israel, the US, Indonesia, or any other nation.

-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi