[quote name='MrBadExample']The relevance is you were implying that since Congress voted for the use of force, the war is legal. I just pointed out that Annan was not talking about US law.
If the UN resolutions authorize the US (as opposed to a UN force) to invade Iraq, I am unaware of it. Please point it out.[/quote]
I'd like to thank the WSJ for sparing me the aggravation of having to do this myself.
Kofi's Law
610 words
20 September 2004
The Wall Street Journal
A20
English
(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
Last we checked, U.N. chief Kofi Annan was promising to help the U.S. rebuild Iraq. But pressed by a BBC interviewer last week, the Secretary-General stated flat out that the liberation of Iraq was "illegal" and a violation of the U.N. Charter. He had already opined that "there should have been a second resolution" authorizing the invasion, and that "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time."
These thoughts could certainly stand a little parsing. Mr. Annan seems to be saying that the only way force can be used legitimately in the modern world is with the unanimous permission of the U.N. Security Council. So perhaps we should remind him of some recent history.
For example, there was that splendidly legitimate U.N. operation in Bosnia, where its blue-helmeted peacekeepers watched with indifference as Serbian soldiers rounded up for slaughter thousands of Muslim men in the so-called U.N. "safe haven" of Srebrenica. Or Rwanda in 1994, where Mr. Annan -- then head of the U.N. peacekeeping office -- shrugged off panicked warning calls from the U.N. commander on the ground, thereby allowing the slaughter of 800,000.
And if liberating Iraq was wrong, Mr. Annan must also believe it was wrong for NATO to have intervened in Kosovo, where Russia once again prevented Security Council unanimity. How about the recent French intervention in the Ivory Coast, which the Security Council got around to blessing only after it was a fait accompli? And notwithstanding the latest U.N. promises, what if Gallic and Chinese oil interests block international action in Sudan, allowing the continued attacks on Darfurians? It would appear, on this evidence, that Security Council unanimity isn't exactly the gold standard of legitimacy, much less of morality.
And what's this business about a "second" Iraq resolution? U.N. Resolution 1441 was the 17th resolution demanding that Saddam verifiably disarm, behave with some modicum of respect for the rights of his own citizens, and otherwise comply with conditions of the ceasefire following the end of the 1991 Gulf War. From firing at American planes patrolling the no-fly zones, to widespread sanctions busting, to a banned long-range missile program, the Iraqi dictator was in undeniable breach in March 2003 of the terms under which his regime was spared back in 1991. In other words, there was never any legal need for even Resolution 1441.
This is the same Kofi Annan, by the way, who said after saving Saddam from a U.S. armada in 1998 that "You can do a lot with diplomacy, but with diplomacy backed up by force you can get a lot more done." But in large part thanks to such diplomatic interventions by Mr. Annan on Saddam's behalf, by 2003 the dictator apparently believed that this "force" was always going to be an illusion. He thought he'd slip the noose one more time.
The Secretary-General's latest posturing is far from harmless. The U.N. has been given the lead role in organizing the elections in Iraq scheduled for January. But Mr. Annan's "illegal" comments, which have been replayed across the Arab world, have given an added feeling of legitimacy to every jihadist hoping to disrupt the vote.
His comments also suggest that Mr. Annan belongs in the same category as France and Russia in never intending the "serious consequences" threatened by Resolution 1441. We wonder: Could the corrupt Oil for Food program and all the revenues it generated for the U.N. have anything to do with it?
Additionally:
Kofi Votes Kerry
By Caspar Weinberger
555 words
20 September 2004
The Wall Street Journal
A20
English
(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
For those who, like John Kerry, believe that the proper foreign-policy course in Iraq and elsewhere is to turn everything over to the United Nations, events of the last week provided some highly dubious fodder:
-- First, despite Colin Powell's correct description of the killings of African Muslims in the Darfur region of Sudan as "genocide," the U.N. did not leap into action.
In fact, the Security Council was mired in a semantic argument as to whether a U.S.-proposed resolution could be interpreted as threatening sanctions against Sudan. The first answer was "no" to the resolution. China, mindful of its trade with Sudan, refused the original wording. Bear in mind that this is the same Council which, in the midst of the Darfur atrocities, reappointed Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Sudan's term on this oddly named commission runs until 2007, so Darfur should not raise its expectations of U.N. help anytime soon, despite the fact that the Security Council finally did pass a resolution "threatening" oil sanctions.
-- Second, the absurdity of the Kerry solution of turning over to the U.N. matters too difficult for his political staff to handle was fully unveiled last week when Kofi Annan, secretary general of the U.N., unilaterally declared that U.S. actions in freeing the world of Saddam Hussein were "illegal."
I do not recall any vote in the Security Council, even assuming it could pull itself together, that we had been behaving illegally in Iraq. Nor does Mr. Annan mention any U.N. vote, or any other authority, for his statement to the BBC that, from the "from our point of view and from the Charter point of view, was illegal." Then Mr. Annan, apparently determined to be as unhelpful as possible, added that it was "unlikely that Iraq would be able to hold credible elections as planned in January 2005, if security conditions continue as they are."
Iraq is indeed less likely to have credible elections if the head of the U.N. brands the actions that made possible any elections as "illegal."
The key fact here is not that Mr. Annan is quite wrong about U.S. actions, "illegal" or not, under the U.N. Charter. He might be better employed reading the Charter, especially that bit in Art. 51 about member-states having the right to defend themselves. He might also recall the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The key fact to remember is that Mr. Annan heads an organization to which presidential candidate Kerry would, if he means what he says, turn over management of such difficult problems as defending ourselves or deterring more terrorist attacks.
Those voters who declare themselves to poll-takers as "undecided" or "for Kerry" should keep in mind our country's future safety and security -- and keep in mind as well the Kerry proposal to turn over our ability to realize that future safety and security to the U.N., whose head has apparently already decided that what we are doing is "illegal." Put another way, if Kofi Annan had a vote on Nov. 2, which way would he vote? Now ask yourself the simple follow-up question, Which way should I vote?
---
Mr. Weinberger was secretary of defense under President Reagan.
the UN says the world should do the oppisite.
