The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan says that under the UN charter, the war in Iraq was / is illegal. His view being that as it was the Security Council who issued the threat of “serious consequences”, they and only they had the right to define what those consequences were. The second resolution should have been a clarification on what those consequences would acually be.
There is also the small point that the UN does not, ever support invasion of other countries on the grounds of “regime change”. As i remember, this was already US policy well before the invasion - someone correct me if i am mistaken.
So should the US / UK have spent a bit more time and worked a bit harder to get the term “serious consequences” clarified by the Security Council in a second resolution, and if it had been passed, would the current situation be better with a more international force - sanctioned by the UN?
No clarification needed. Obviously, the Security Council has the final say on what its resolutions mean. The US/UK obviously intended to go to war no matter what and only wanted Security Council approval to lend legitimacy. It takes some serious spin (Exhibit A:Liberal’s tu quoque) to sell the idea that upholding the Security Council’s resolutions is so important that you have to go to war against the same Security Council’s wishes.
I don’t think they’re specifically mentioned, but the Charter relates to how nations engage one another - it does not address such infringements on the part of corrupt individuals, as I understand it.
The issue here is that a Charter is only as good as the will of the parties who sign up to it (heck, the US practically wrote it!).
He’s certainly welcome to his opinion, but one wonders why it took him 1 1/2 years to make this pronouncement. Wouldn’t have anything to do with certain elections coming up in November would it?
Actually, I don’t think this will affect the election either way. Most Americans who would care about what Kofi Anan had to say have probably already decided to vote for Kerry.
“If the U.S. and others were to go outside the council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the charter.” – Kofi Annan, March 11, 2003
Annan’s statements only make explicit what he’s been suggesting pretty much from the get-go: The American action in Iraq was unilateral, not made with SC approval, and hence contrary to UN Charter. That’s a longwinded way to say “illegal”. His utterance of the “I” word only came after being prodded by a BBC interview to pretty much name the elephant in the room.
It’s spitting in the wind, essentially. If what the Secretary General of the UN said actually mattered to the World Powers, beyond lending the perception of legitimacy to some actions, we would not be in Iraq today. Those who knew the war was illegitimate and illegal in any meaningful sense of the world did not need Annan to state the obvious. Those who harbor the illusing the action was legitimate won’t listen anyway.
I think the only (sad) conclusion that can come out of this recent flap is that, in the grand scheme, the UN doesn’t count for squat unless America wants it to count. Hence, it has no independent legitimacy, and Annan’s statments amount to toothless disobedience.
Maybe. “Not confroming with the charter” isn’t exactly the same as “illegal”. The former can easily be interpretted as neutral wrt legality. At any rate, I tend to agree with **Loopy **on this-- the UN has little, if any, clout unless its on the same side as the US. You can argue about whether that’s good or bad, but it sure seems to be true in most situations.
To be fair, it doesn’t sound like he exactly came out and say “It was illegal” out of the blue. It sounds like those were the reporter’s words, not his:
Sounds like he was being consistent and the reporter was the one trying to change the characterization of the events.
I’ve been saying for two years that invading Iraq was an illegal breech of the UN Charter (and, Mace, breeching a treaty is, by definition, illegal. I think you’re grasping at straws if you’re trying to draw a distinction there). Of course it is. The inability of the UN to do anything about it does not make it less illegal.
I also find it a little disingenuous that some people want to jump up and down and point at perceived violations of UN Resolutions as an excuse to invade, but then claim the UN doesn’t matter when it comes to our iwn violations (and nevcer mind that US does not have the authority to arbitrarily impose its own sanctions anyway. Bush is not the Sheriff and Blair is not his deputy. They do not have the right or authority to form their own posse and kill people).
The question is not whether the UN can do anything about it (what an ammoral and thuggish attitude that would be) but whether the US is going to honor its own fucking treaty which it helped to author and which was ratified by its own congress.
Shoul we honor our treaties or not? Yes or no? And if not, then do we have a right to expect anyone else to honor treaties?
But that’s just the thing-- was a treaty breeched, and who determines if it was? Frankly, I don’t think it really makes sense to use the term “legal” wrt this war. Opinions vary, and lacking a governing body for making that determination, it is overstating the case to claim that it is illegal (or, for that matter, legal). Perhaps that is why Anan seemed somewhat reticent about making that claim, ie use of “if you wish” in his quote. As an example, Britain’s Attorney general offers this explanation of the legality of the war (my bolding of the key argument):
John, I’m not going to rehash the whole debate on the legality of the Iraq war, which was already done to death here. But citing the opinion of one of the aggressor nations is disingenuous at best. The aggressor is always going to come up with some sort of sophistry to justify its actions. It’s rather like saying, “Well Hitler didn’t think it was illegal to kill the Jews”. As already pointed out, it’s ludicrous to claim we were carrying out the intent of the UN when the UN explicitly rejected our bid to use force against Iraq. The UN Charter very clearly forbids unilateral strikes that are not in self-defense. Call it “legal”, call it “illegal”, call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is that we violated a treaty. Coming up with a bunch of quasi-legal b.s. impresses noone save British and American hard-liners.
Has the actual evidence for this been pried from the cold dead fingers of the INC afiliated minions who discovered it? Last I heard, no outside observers had been allowed to see it.
Or is it still a matter of taking their word for it?
Looks like the new server upgrade has distorted the space time continuum…
As to my cite, it is no more disingenuous to cite someone in favor of the war than to cite someone not in favor of it. And, did the UNSC **explicitly **reject the US’s bid to use force? Actually, the US punted on that one, didn’t we, since it never actually came to a vote. Perhaps you meant implicitly.
Clearly, the leaders of the following countries did not consider the action “illegal”:
Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Turkey (and, of course, United Kingdom).
All those countries supplied some support, however minimal, to the war.
As blowero said this is sophist and pretty much irrelevant. Since when do the criminals decide what the law is?
More to the point, it’s wrong. UN Resolution 678 only authorized whatever use of force was necessary to remove Iraq from Kuwait (or to be truly pedantic about it, it authorized whatever use of force was necessary to enforce resolution 660 which told Iraq to get the fuck out of Kuwait.
What it did NOT do, was authorize any attack on the sovereignty of Iraq, and the attack specifically on sovereignty is what violates the UN Charter, not a use of force. per se.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but Iraq did not violate Resolution 186. Remember? There weren’t any WMDs.
The illustrious Baliff from across the pond is either being deliberately obfuscatory, or he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Hell, I don’t know international law from the International House of Pancakes and it took me four minutes on google to figure out this guy was full of crap.
Wrong, per my original cite as is clearly demonstrated by the additional clause in the item #2 of the resolution. Unless, of course, you have a different definition of what “and” means (my bolding):
I’ll take the large stack with blueberry syrup, when you’re done googling.
We already had international peace and security in the area. That clause only dealt with stopping aggressive actions by Iraq vis-a-vis Kuwait. It most definitely did not authorize an attack on the sovereignty of Iraq, which is explicitly forbidden by the UN Charter except for self defense.
“Restore peace” != “Overthrow the government ten years later.”
And you ignored the fact that Iraq did not breech 678. Iraq was not acting aggressively, nor was it using or stockpiling or manufacturing any banned weapons.
With all due respect, John, I like you but you’re wrong on this.
