Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: un'altra rognetta per Bush?

10.57 - NEOZELANDESE DATO PER DISPERSO ERA DETENUTO DA uSA. Un viaggiatore
neozelandese, che le autorità davano per disperso in Iraq, è stato tenuto
prigioniero, senza poter comunicare con nessuno, per tre mesi di
interrogatori. Lo rivela oggi il New Zealand Herald, ricordando che Andreas
Schafer, di 26 anni, era scomparso in marzo, facendo scattare le ricerche ad
alto livello delle autorità neozelandesi presso quelle Usa, che hanno
ripetutamente negato di avere informazioni sulla persona.
http://www.repubblica.it/diretta/online/esteri-esteri-25maggio/index.html

 wrote in
message news:c8vg6u$n2d$1...@e3k.asi.ansaldo.it...

...si vede che non hanno mai digerito il fatto che la NZ ha cacciato il loro
esercito e soprattutto i loro submarines nucleari dal proprio territorio...
K

ma dai,
 loro i diritti umani li rispettano.............
quando dormono..........

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:2hhen6F...@uni-berlin.de...

Vediamo cosa si diceva in Nuova Zelanda (e in Sudafrica) un po' di tempo fa:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3147128&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
New Zealand ambassador tells UN unilateral attack on Iraq not justified
19.02.2003
11.40am
New Zealand's belief that a unilateral attack on Iraq is not justified has
been reiterated to the United Nations General Assembly in New York this
morning (NZ time).
New Zealand's ambassador to the United Nations, Don McKay, told the assembly
during an open debate that while the Government recognised the UN Security
Council must be able to authorise force, it did not believe such action was
yet justified.
"The New Zealand Government has a very strong preference for a diplomatic
solution to this crisis," Mr McKay said.
"We place considerable weight on the inspection and disarmament process. We
believe it should run its course.
"We do not support military action against Iraq without a mandate from the
Security Council, and we do not believe the council would be justified in
giving that mandate at this time."
A report by UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix last Friday suggested Iraq
had moved to at least partly accommodate some of the inspectors' requests,
Mr McKay said.
However, it still had to answer serious questions about material related to
weapons of mass destruction.
"The New Zealand Government calls on Iraq to move rapidly to provide the
information and co-operation requested of it to avert the catastrophe which
war would bring to its people."
New Zealand's position was based on strong support for multilateralism, the
international rule of law and its respect for the Security Council, Mr McKay
said.
"We will uphold the council's decisions but urge it at this time to ensure
that all available diplomatic means are used to pursue the disarmament of
Iraq as set out in the council's resolutions."
South Africa also yesterday urged the world to continue inspections in Iraq
before considering military action, thereby setting the tone for a mammoth
UN debate about US war plans.
"We believe that resorting to war without fully exhausting all other options
presents an admission of failure by the Security Council in carrying out its
mandate of international peace and security," said Ambassador Dumisani
Kumalo.
Supporting a position by France, Kumalo said inspections should be enhanced
and become more intrusive before the United Nations ends them and considers
other measures.
He was backed by Iran, which Iraq invaded in 1980, Cuba, Algeria and others
at a public meeting, organised by the 115-member Non-Aligned Movement that
South Africa heads. Some 70 nations, without seats on the UN Security
Council, are scheduled to address the council's 15 members.
Kuwaiti envoy, Mansour al-Otaibi, whose country was invaded by Iraq in 1990,
hoped that force would be the last resort, but he faulted Baghdad for its
actions.
"It is regrettable that Iraq continues to challenge the will of the
international community for so long without fully realising the repercussion
and the gravity of such policies on the stability of the whole sub-region,"
al-Otaibi said.
In response, Iraq's UN ambassador Mohammed Aldouri, accused the United
States and Britain of using the pretext of weapons of mass destruction to
launch a war against the government of Saddam Hussein.
He appealed to members to listen to the "call of millions" who condemned war
in demonstrations over the weekend but said Iraq was prepared to fight if
attacked.
"If the aggression against Iraq takes place, Iraq's sons, famous for their
struggle against British occupation in the 1920s, will defend their
country," Aldouri said.
While the debate was being conducted, the United States and Britain worked
on a new UN resolution seeking backing for an attack against Iraq, despite a
reluctant Security Council.
No draft is expected to emerge before Wednesday, with US and British
officials waiting for the end of the public meeting, which will spill over
into Wednesday.
John Negroponte, the US ambassador to the United Nations, met his British
counterpart, Sir Jeremy Greenstock on Monday to discuss "next steps and
tactics, including the resolution," said one diplomat close to the talks.
Prospects for achieving a quick and clean resolution authorising war dimmed
after the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, on Friday gave a more
positive report than last month on the progress of his work in Iraq.
So far most council members support France, which means the United States
and Britain face an uphill struggle getting even the minimum nine votes
needed for adoption.
Earlier this month, the United States spoke of a resolution explicitly
authorising force. Last week this was toned down to declaring Iraq in
"material breach" of a November 8 council resolution 1441, words that would
give the legal basis for war, and threaten "serious consequences."
Diplomats said they expected any new resolution to follow the language of
resolution 1441, but were uncertain if it would include a set of conditions
to Iraq within a tight deadline to disclose any weapons of mass destruction
programmes.
An option of issuing an ultimatum to President Saddam Hussein to relinquish
power is considered unlikely. This would be tantamount to a call for "regime
change," which most of the 15 council members would reject as illegal,
diplomats said.
UN backing is particularly important for Britain and other European nations
that support the United States, which has amassed 250,000 troops in the Gulf
for an attack many analysts believe will come in mid-March.
The build-up in advance of a possible attack prompted massive anti-war
protests last weekend involving millions of people around the globe.
- NZPA / REUTERS