"Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea."

In terms of international law, what implications does this have (If it's actually true)? Is this the smoking gun? If these vessels represent the entire store of Iraq’s banned weapons, could war be avoided? Are all the eggs in the same basket?

One thing is certain: These ships cannot stay out at sea forever. If they do carry banned weapons in their cargo, then they will be found out sooner or later. But at what cost?

In light of the US being prepared to bribe other nations to support an extensive war - and a subsequent occupation - wouldn't it be cheaper for us to propose that the UN weapons inspectors be allowed to claim global jurisdiction in their search for Iraqi engineered weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors would then have the authority of international law to seize and examine the cargo of these vessels whatever their location.

Furthermore, a UN Security Council resolution which bars UN member states from supplying these vessels until they have made a full disclosure with regards to their cargo should be immediately considered. The suspicion of vessels carrying tons of weapons grade materials on the high seas is adequate grounds for the Security Council to act on this matter.

To consider the worst case scenario: If these ships are capable of polluting regional ecosystems, and they do so, UN member nations who are adversely effected by this action must receive economic compensation for their environmental loses.

Either way – its cheaper than war.

Labels: iraq, UN, wmd