 All right let's get started. As I was mentioning last hour, there was intensive negotiations with Iraq with a view to persuading Iraqi leadership, Saddam Hussein in the first place, and others who were involved in negotiations that Iraq should withdraw its troops from Kuwait, and that was not an acceptable act of aggression. And if Iraq did not comply with the decisions of the United Nations Security Council, it would have to suffer the consequences. And of course it had already suffered the consequences by way of imposing sanctions on Iraq, and for instance one of the first acts against Iraq was the closure of the pipeline between Kharkiv and Yomurt al-Iskandar by the Republic of Turkey. So Turkish President Turgut Özal has taken this abrupt decision and sort of decided to act along the United Nations Security Council resolutions before the resolutions were even issued. Well anyway this is a period that has to be discussed at length, and this is not the proper platform right now. But what I would like to say here, it is important to bear in mind that there were a series of resolutions which have led the way up to this actual major resolution 678, which actually authorized the members of the United Nations to individually and collectively contribute to the liberation of the Kuwaiti territory from the invasion of Iraq. So on November 29th of the year 1990, resolution 678 authorized the use of force, and again as you can see here there is this reference to Chapter 7, and Chapter 7 having consumed some of the intermeasures between no action and use of force, this political diplomatic initiatives, economic sanctions, etc. Then since Iraq did not back down, did not withdraw from the Kuwaiti territory, use of force was the ultimate instrument, and the United Nations Security Council authorized this use of force. Well of course the use of force was not such an easy thing to exercise that quickly, because there will be certain consequences unless countries, other members of the UN system would be prepared to launch an offensive against Iraq, or Iraqi forces against the Iraqi forces which had invaded the Kuwaiti territory, because let me just try to figure out if I can, alright, so Iraqi forces had to be expelled from the Kuwaiti territory. The authorization of use of force was with the very specific and exclusive purpose of expelling the Iraqi forces which had invaded the Kuwaiti territory from Kuwaiti territory. So there were a number of misinterpretations of the use of force, or authorization of use of force by the UN, and many people especially afterwards have discussed this issue, debated this issue as to why the coalition forces which were formed under the leadership of the United States, why they have not gone till the end, till Baghdad, and why they did not topple the Saddam regime. That was not the purpose of the UN Security Council Resolution 678. The UN Security Council Resolution which authorized the use of force against Iraqi units which had invaded Kuwaiti territory was solely uniquely to expel the Iraqi forces out of the Kuwaiti territory. The authorization was not to pursue these Iraqi forces until Baghdad and changed the regime or toppled the regime or fight against Iraqi forces inside the Iraqi territory. No, that was not the case. So this issue has to be properly understood. The authorization of use of force was with the unique purpose of expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory, period. There was no other purpose of the UN Security Council authorization of use of force. As I said, many people discussed especially in the period leading up to the second Gulf War in 2003, we have heard people commenting on why the United States and coalition forces have not gone till Baghdad and have not invaded Iraqi territory or used force against the Saddam Hussein inside Iraq. That was not authorized by the UN Security Council. This has to be properly understood. This is something that not many people maybe understood well at the time and even today. So as I said, in between August and March 1991 when war occurred or just the fighting have taken place inside the Kuwaiti territory and maybe a little bit here in the Iraqi territory, there is this period of several months during which as I said, political, economic, all other measures have been discussed, debated. And finally, and also during which there was a huge number of deployments around Kuwaiti territory in Saudi Arabia in the first place and in other countries in the region like Bahrain, Qatar and so and of course there were navies here in the sea and other countries have given the permission for temporary deployment of a large number of troops. If I am not mistaken, there was a concentration of 600,000 troops, 600,000 soldiers around the Kuwaiti territory who were waiting for an offensive against the Iraqi forces. Of course, again, there is something that you should keep in mind if you are going to stay in security studies for one combatant unit, for one soldier who is going to fight, enter fighting actively, you need six or seven and in some case eight soldiers who of course are doing other stuff, extending from cooking and to taking care of stockpiles and ammunition or communication and everything. So 600,000 troops doesn't necessarily mean that 600,000 of them were fighting or were ready to fight or carrying guns. So therefore, approximately 100,000 of them could fight or could involve in actual fighting. So anyway, Iraqi forces which were almost obsolete in many respects because they had both tanks or given tanks by the Soviet Union and they were not necessarily properly maintained. The army was not kept in good shape by way of training and during all these months under sanctions, maybe they lack some of the spare parts or maybe in the past. So the Iraqi army which was on paper, something that might have seemed to be a powerful army was in fact not that powerful and that was confirmed during the fighting which lasted for about two weeks and indeed not even that much and not many people have lost their lives during this actual fighting. Of course, considering the extent of deployment and number of troops involved, one would have expected much higher number of casualties. Hopefully that was not the case and the Iraqi army was not able to sustain a war, sustained fighting for a long time. So the coalition forces which were formed under the leadership, of course there was no official leadership position of any country but the United States was the one which had poured a large number of troops to the region, then comes the United Kingdom for instance, France which dragged its feet. I was mentioning the French position. French politicians are known for being their opposition to almost everything. So because having studied in a French medium high school, I know the French philosophy and I can understand as to why they stood up against primarily and in principle against imposing some sanctions on the Iraqi people, Iraqi government of course that would have repercussions for Iraqi people. But at the time when French government, politicians were talking about whether they should veto the decision of the United Nations Security Council and if they vetoed because they had vetoed power, UN Security Council could not take any such decision and no such resolution could be issued and no sanctions could be imposed on Iraq. And when the French politicians, France or Mitterrand, etc., I mean other people were talking about this veto, using veto right of France. Saddam Hussein did something one would call it crazy and he actually put and deployed French citizens who were at the time of this war or invasion for some reason in Iraqi territory or maybe those diplomatic personnel, maybe business people or maybe tourists who somehow happened to be there. He used the human beings, women, children and elderly people as a shield against some of the important installations, military facilities. And the world has seen the images, pictures of women, children, hand in hand around the facilities in Iraq who would be, of course, would have lost their lives if Iraq attacked. So these pictures really cause a lot of anxiety and anger in France and the French cabinet decided not to veto the resolution. A similar thing actually happened when, again, there was this consideration about the, using the veto right and Saddam Hussein crashed into the French embassy building with tanks. He apologized for that. He said things have happened without his knowledge. How could it happen in a country like Iraq where Anmouhaberat was everywhere and they were executing everything from top to bottom under the, with the knowledge of Saddam Hussein. So, again, when there was this issue of imposing, authorizing use of force, French people when they were talking about vetoing that because that would be far fetch a decision from French perspective using force against Iraq. They were not about to accept it. But after this acts of Saddam Hussein, they decided not to use their veto right. Finally, again, we come, we have come to the point of authorization of use of force with resolution 678. And then war started again after 29th of November. There was a period which elapsed between November 29th and March 17, 19, I can remember exactly. And sorry, in mid January, March was the second war in 2003. So in mid January between this late November, mid January, there was still a period of intense negotiations against Saddam Hussein did not step down and did not sort of change his decision and did not withdraw from Iraq. So the only option was the authorization of use of force and execution of this authorization of use of force. And then, as I said, the fighting lasted only for about two weeks. Well, in the meantime, of course, during the war there were a number of missiles which were fired against Israeli territory, against Saudi Arabian territory because Saudi Arabia was considered to be an enemy of Iraq under Saddam Hussein because Saudi Arabia had cooperated, collaborated with the United States and the coalition forces and it had opened its territory to the deployment of coalition forces. And therefore, Saddam Hussein ordered to his generals to launch missiles against Saudi Arabia as well as against Israel. No one died because of these missiles. Only one person lost his life and that was because of heart attack, because of the fear of the missiles, not necessarily missiles themselves. So these missiles in the hands of Iraq did not prove to be very effective. Hopefully, no one died because of missile attacks. And some of the missiles, actually many of the missiles have not even reached their destination or have gone far from where they were intended to be, to hit. So this brought us to the end of war and to the resolution 687. This is something that has shaped the rest of the story, starting from 1991 to 2003. This resolution 687 had a huge impact on the pace of events, on the pace of developments, which I'll talk about in a moment. Let me go back to, was this, yes, 687 here. Well, this resolution, I should go first back to paragraph 33, which is something that we should at all times bear in mind. If you can read here, paragraph 33, this one, United Nations Security Council with the resolution 687 dated April 3, 1991, which followed the end of war and Iraqi forces have surrendered, have sort of stopped fighting and surrendered. Here it says in paragraph or article 33, paragraph 33 declares that upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the above provisions, above provisions meaning all 32 paragraphs preceding this paragraph, number 33. So Iraq declares officially its acceptance of above provisions, all the provisions prior to this, a formal ceasefire, a formal ceasefire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the member states cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678. There is this clear reference to resolution 678 because member states cooperated with Kuwait according to 678, meaning according to the official legal authorization of UN Security Council to use force. So this paragraph says Iraq accepts a ceasefire with Kuwait and also with the coalition forces which use force against Iraq with a view to liberating Kuwait. So here what you have to bear in mind is that there is this formal ceasefire and subject to the above provisions meaning subject to the prior paragraphs. So the ceasefire is conditioned upon the issues that are elaborated in the previous paragraphs. Not every single one of them but some of them are very important and I'll come to that because the rest of the story depends heavily on these issues. So what we have to bear in mind is that not that the war is over, there is not yet a peace treaty, there is this ceasefire and this ceasefire is conditioned upon certain provisions here. A ceasefire is not an ultimate resolution, it is not an ultimate solution, it is an interim solution because if there is a stalemate between the fighting parties, no one can advance its cause, no one can gain another inch of territory but keep losing men and women in the battlefield or in the cities, so there is no reason for fighting anymore. And they say all right let's stop the war because it is quite obvious that we are not going to advance our position by way of fighting but now let's sit and talk and find a solution and of course the ceasefire is something as I said as an interim solution is subject to certain conditions and if these conditions are met by the parties are observed by all the parties to the ceasefire, ceasefire continues. As I said since 1953 there is this ceasefire which is still in effect between North Korea and the countries which have fought alongside South Korea against North Korea, so there is no peace treaty and since 1953 there is actually this ceasefire situation which is conditioned upon certain issues to be observed by these states party and one thing that again you have to bear in mind about the ceasefire is that if one of the parties or one of the sides does not comply with the conditions with the provisions of the ceasefire the other side may or may not, it is not an automatic issue but the other side may make this a case and may very well say all right you are not observing the principles of ceasefire you're not meeting the conditions of ceasefire now I'm telling you I'm warning you that I can resort to force again unless you comply with the conditions and if the other party insists on not complying with the conditions of the ceasefire the other party may open fire again and therefore there is no need for another authorization. This issue has been discussed among the lawyers, legal people, international law experts as to whether the ceasefire of 1991 would still be effective in 2003 well we'll come to that point maybe today maybe next time we'll meet here but what we have to bear in mind that after a few weeks of fighting Iraqis have surrendered and the coalition forces have found no reason to continue to fighting and they set with the Iraqis and agreed upon certain conditions with a view to executing a ceasefire and that was here stated in the paragraph 33 of the UN Security Council resolution 687 so because it says acceptance of the above provisions it means acceptance of all the 32 paragraphs but of course out of these 32 paragraphs some of them are much more significant one of which of course let me find it here here we go paragraph 8 decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction removal or rendering harmless under international supervision of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents I mean chemical and biological agents not spies and all related subsystems and components and all research development support manufacturing facilities related there too etc. and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers and related major parts and repair decides also and look decides here the world is important decides also for implementation of paragraph 8 following Iraq shall submit to the Secretary General and it goes all the way is there a problem over there all right if you need to go out you can just leave no problem is there an emergency situation all right no fine fine here paragraph 9 actually here forming of special commission which shall carry out immediate on-site inspections of Iraq biological chemical and missile capabilities based on Iraq Iraq's declaration and designation of any additional location by the special commission itself and it goes all the way so you will have I mean I will forward this email to you or these links and or you can go and find on the website of the United Nations if you go to peace and security part then you find United Nations Security Council then you go to resolutions and by way of they are stored in the archives according to the year so you can find from their numbers it's not a big deal it's going to take only half a minute but anyway for your ease I will send these links to you what I'm trying to say here paragraph 33 impose a ceasefire between Iraq and Kuwait as well as between Iraq and countries the coalition members which have liberated the Kuwaiti territory that means there is a delicate ceasefire situation which is subject to conditions and these conditions are accepted by Iraq which were the provisions prior to that paragraph in which ceasefire was mentioned and one of these paragraphs was paragraphs was paragraph eight and nine and ten and in paragraph eight it says Iraq shall unconditionally give information to a special commission which will be established with the view to destroying rendering harmless or destruction or removal of Iraqi chemical weapons capability and the material that are in relation to this weapon system manufacturing system etc biological weapons and ballistic missiles whose range would be longer than 150 kilometers so hundred missiles ballistic missiles whose range would be longer than 150 kilometers why do you think the United Nations Security Council allowed Iraqi sort of government or administration to retain its missiles lower than 150 kilometers range I mean why didn't the UN Security Council ask from Iraq to destroy every single missile that it would have in its own arsenal why only about 150 kilometers and longer range missiles that could be the reason for for this well that's an answer John basically same answers because remember what I said resolution 678 which authorized use of force against Iraqi forces did not authorize the coalition forces to use force against Iraq all the way the purpose of the resolution was to liberate the Kuwaiti territory was not to invade the Iraqi territory so of course some of the findings may have taken place within the Iraqi territory as a consequence of fighting itself but the overall objective was not to go all the way to back that or invade Iraqi territory or topple Saddam's regime etc the purpose was exclusively uniquely to liberate Kuwaiti territory so once Iraq was defeated and was forced to accept the ceasefire subject to certain conditions of course Iraq was not wanted to be to suffer the consequence of this war beyond certain limit because yes they committed an act of aggression the situation had to be restored Kuwaiti territory had to be liberated Iraq had to be punished but not beyond a certain level therefore Iraq some other countries in the region or some of the neighbors of Iraq many countries feared might might have wanted to exploit the situation and because Iraq would be in a very vulnerable position having fought and lost a war in the hands of the coalition forces then Iran and Syria or Saudi Arabia or others I mean without naming any country the UN system was concerned about some countries wishing to exploit the situation and awaiting Iraqi territory or launching a war against Iraq for instance until very recently there was this Iran Iraq for 1998 1988 sorry the war had ended and only two years later Iran had certain claims still and vice versa Iraq still had certain claims even though there was a ceasefire between Iraq and Iran and who knows maybe Iran might have wanted to exploit the situation so retaining missile capability below a certain range would was considered to be a minimum deterrence for the neighbors of Iraq and therefore they would stay away from trying to exploit the situation so that's that has to be understood because again as I said last hour some people have not still understood back in 2002-2003 as to why the coalition forces have not gone all the way to back that that was not allowed in the resolution 678 not many people considered this or no notice clearly anyway so this 687 is a key resolution which had far-reaching consequences for the rest of the story starting from 1991 April all the way to 2003 March so for approximately dozen years 12 years the six resolution 687 had its direct consequences for both Iraq and some other countries including Turkey to some extent but something before that maybe where is the map we should find a map here here well during the war certain things happened when Iraqi I mean Bush the father Bush was in power George Bush not George W Bush the father Bush was US president and he had given some encouragement some incentives to the groups which were thus far up until that moment under heavy pressure of of the Saddam Hussein regime the Kurds primarily in the north and Shia in the south to revolt against the central authority so in a sense from a distance from Washington DC George Bush the president of the United States made some statements which encouraged the Kurdish groups as well as the Shia groups to take advantage of the fragile situation vulnerable situation of the Saddam Hussein position and to revolt against and because after all there were a coalition forces around the Iraqi territory and that United States in the first place and other Western countries and other countries like Pakistan some other country from other parts of the world there so to revolt against and maybe take over the country and he who listened to Bush actually would think that if the Kurds or the Shia revolted against the central authority I mean the United States and other countries would provide support that was thinking that was a perception or the message that many people thought they they got from the statements made by Bush and that was the case the Kurds have launched in the north as well as Shia in the south you know state some demonstrations expressed their will to change the regime in the country but what they had forgotten was that the resolution 678 had not authorized the coalition forces to enter into the Iraqi territory and to help with the rebellion groups so therefore those in the north and in the south who were expecting a tangible support from the coalition forces could not get their support that was that was not possible they probably had not a chance to read the UN resolution or maybe to interpret the resolutions correctly so once they stage demonstrations and then no help came no help came from the US or other countries they figured out that they were left to to their own devices and that they were left to to their own so they started to flee the country because what had happened back in 1988 was especially in Halepche the Kurds who had revolted against Saddam Hussein with the incitements of Iran which wanted to use the Kurds against Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war so and Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons in Halepche in March 1988 and some 5,000 or so people most the civilian women children elderly not necessarily Dimitri people had lost their lives so with remembering that what had happened back in March 1988 this time again without the support of the West Kurds in the north and Shia in the south had started to flee the country and go enter into Iranian territory Turkish territory in the north and the Saudi territory of course this is desert but mostly Turkey and Iran so there was there was an influx of large number of refugees there was a humanitarian crisis and Turkish sort of territory had to accommodate more than 500,000 of refugees mostly coming from northern Iraq and many more approximately a million of them have entered the Iranian territory so that was a very difficult situation again during the war in March 1991 so of course Turkey had to deal with the consequence of this situation try to do its utmost to provide food shelter and we're talking about people crossing the border into Turkish territory where the elevations are around 3,000 meters I mean it is March and it is a cold season it's not still spring or warm weather and there was we're talking about high elevations I mean high altitude territory where people had to cross the border through the mountains so it was not only very difficult for them to cross the border into Turkish territory to save their lives but also very difficult for the Turkish security units to help them out to provide shelter food or clothes and other things heating etc so there was a huge enormous humanitarian situation which Turkey had to deal with with this situation of course with the help of other countries and the United Nations disaster relief and so such humanitarian aid related organizations well that situation was somehow dealt with by Iran and Turkey with the help of other countries but this situation was exploited politically and having some major consequences by the United States in the first place and the United Kingdom by declaring some no-fly zones here along the 32nd and 36th parlance and United States declared no-fly zones in the north and in the south of Baghdad in the north and south of Iraq Iraqi territory they were denied to Saddam's military although the sort of the decision was or suggested it only limited flights over this territory but also denied entry to these zones from on the ground either so Iraqi forces were not permitted to cross into the territories above 36 and below 32nd parallels so these territories more or less here and here were denied to Saddam's military this of course had severe consequences for primarily for Turkey and what we have seen was the emergence and evolution of an entity political entity economic entity and more so political entity in the northern part of Iraq which now we're still talking about and we'll talk about it later so the no-fly zone actually what we have to bear in mind is that this decision does not stem from any United Nations Security Council decision it was a unilateral decision of the United States without referring to United Nations Security Council and with the help of the United Kingdom United States executed this for nearly 12 years until the war started in 2003 no-fly zone was imposed on Iraq almost every single minute ever since and this no-fly zone actually as I said acquired or prevented the Iraqi forces from entering into these territories so Saddam is saying who was still in power after war the first Gulf War in 1991 until 2003 under the second Gulf War after which he was seized somewhere and then executed so he stayed in power for 12 more years but he had he was able to exert his control only in between this 36 and 36 and 32nd parallels so the country was de facto partition de facto sort of divided into three north middle and south north and south denied to Saddam's forces and therefore certain things were going on and in the middle Saddam was still controlling power and still having its army and some you know military units still intact but not very much effective because of the sanctions which were imposed all the more tougher than used to be prior to the war so therefore going back to resolution 687 what we have to bear in mind that a United Nations special commission was established which was known as Anscombe this Anscombe was effective for quite a number of years because remember the ceasefire was conditioned upon Iraq's unconditional cooperation with Anscombe and the IAEA international atomic energy agency chemical biological weapons plus ballistic missiles and nuclear facilities so Iraq was asked to cooperate unconditionally without creating any conditions or without dragging its feet cooperate right away with the United Nations special commission to destroy remove or render harmless its chemical weapons biological weapons ballistic missiles whose range above are above 150 kilometers and destroy them help the Anscombe inspectors to destroy them or remove them or render them harmless can bio stuff can bio weapons and ballistic missiles and also to cooperate with the international atomic energy agency to destroy its infrastructure that could otherwise pay the way to the manufacturing of nuclear weapons the IAEA has completed its task its mandate within like three or four years and under the leadership of Hans Blix and who was the head of the IAEA in the role of Equs was the head of Anscombe let me just show these guys to you this is Rolf Equs you know the guy next to him and who else this is Hans Blix and this is by the way let him or the head of the founder of Spears Center my Russian team will get in contact with with him to get some information with respect to Russian positions for the simulation and and this guy in the middle is Richard Butler they look like drunk people that they were not because that was right after I don't know maybe the whole day long deliberations starting from eight in the morning till maybe seven or eight in the in the evening so after talking about all the beauties in the world weapons chemical weapons nuclear weapons and the kind of stuff you become tired and you look like a drunk but you're not they were absolutely not anyway so let's go back to this picture so Anscombe and the IAEA were given the task of clearing or cleaning the Iraqi territory from weapons of mass destruction and infrastructure that could be used in the production manufacture of these weapons of mass destruction of course for this to happen the Iraqi authorities had to cooperate with the IAEA people as well as the Anscombe people because Anscombe was a special commission which was established by the United Nations and a number of experts for instance missile experts ballistic missile experts technical technicians technical people and chemical weapons experts biological weapons experts all of them were gathered a drop from a large pool of experts around the world and we're getting from we're getting together to to be dispatched to Iraq they were sent to Iraq and Iraqi authorities had to provide them with escorts and also with the relevant information as to where for instance chemical weapons were produced for instance they they had to be they escorted to facilities in wherever these chemical biological weapons facilities were and ballistic missile storage facilities or manufacturing facilities were so they had to go there and these weapons had to be destroyed or rendered harmless so Anscombe operated without much difficulty for several years starting from 1991 and since Iraq was under pressure could not resist but certain problems were created in due course and some Anscombe inspectors had gone beyond their mandate and one of which was if I can find it here sorry not this one oh yeah here yeah this guy Scott Ritter we'll talk about him more he was a Marine Corps and who was very effective in finding some of the hidden facilities or secret depots or no storage facilities and he actually was a pioneering people kind of hero among the experts experts for a while but since later on he was involved in getting some information through illegal ways or through ways which were not necessarily foreseen in the mandate his presence in the or among the inspectors created a number of problems so we'll continue with this when I come back from my conferences and I will send please wait another moment I will send these links by email please go over these resolutions and familiarize yourselves with issues that I have mentioned here now see you on the following week on October 26th Tuesday next week you can have your sleep in the morning on Friday all right I'll see you on the 26th of October Tuesday