Posted on 09/26/2004 5:11:51 PM PDT by kddid
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has caused a storm with his recent admission to the BBC that the US invasion of Iraq was "illegal."
Recall that in the tense days leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, Annan was pressed on numerous occasions to take a clear position on the legality or otherwise of a preemptive war against a UN member state, without authorisation of the Security Council, and at no point did he clearly state that an invasion would be illegal. On 17 March 2003, Annan was asked point blank by a reporter: "Should the United States go ahead, and its allies, and use military action against Iraq without UN Security Council authorisation, would that be in violation of international law, according to you?"
Annan's less than clear answer was: "I have made it very clear that in my judgement, if the Council were to be able to manage this process successfully and muster the collective will to handle this operation, its own reputation and credibility would have been enhanced. And I have also said if the action is to take place without the support of the council, its legitimacy will be questioned and the support for it will be diminished."
It is puzzling that Annan has chosen to speak up only now, after 30,000 Iraqis have been killed, unknown numbers maimed, and savage violence is escalating and instability threatening the whole region.
The most generous theory for Annan's equivocation up to this point is that he wanted to preserve the neutrality of the UN and with that, any potential role in postwar Iraq, for the benefit of the Iraqi people and the good of the world. Had he condemned the US-led invasion as "illegal", it could be argued, the US would not have given the UN even the minimal role it has granted it so far. But such an argument fails because neither the UN nor its chief executive ought to be neutral on matters of adherence to the UN Charter and international law. Rather than enhancing the credibility of the body, Annan's acquiescence eroded it, giving the impression that when a powerful state commits the gravest possible breach of the Charter — an unprovoked armed attack on a member state, the occupation of its territory, the removal of its government and the installation of a puppet leader employed by its own intelligence services — the Secretary General backs off from any but the mildest comments and goes along with the status quo. The UN, by appearing as the handmaiden of the occupation, seems to have lost all credibility with Iraqis.
Still, one ought to welcome Annan's comments as a belated attempt to redress his past dereliction. But he will need to follow up vigorously, as his words carry a responsibility for action. If the United States acted illegally, then he ought to spell out what consequences should ensue under the Charter. Annan ought to remind those he has accused of conducting an illegal war that when Saddam Hussein committed the historic crime of invading and occupying Kuwait, not only did the UN endorse an international coalition to throw Iraq out, it also imposed and administered devastating sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands of children by the UN's own estimates. Iraq was forced to pay compensation to every foreign national, corporation and state that was harmed by its actions, and despite Iraq's devastated condition, it is still having such compensation subtracted from its meagre oil revenues.
All the costs of implementing these destructive sanctions and to cover UN inspectors and officials were also assessed against Iraq. Iraq was even forced to pay Israel for the damage that its Scud missiles caused to that country in 1991, even though Israel has refused to pay the UN the damages assessed against it for its destruction of a UN base in Qana, Lebanon in 1996, let alone for the incalculable damage it has caused to the Palestinians and neighbouring countries over decades.
Obviously, military action to reverse the illegal US-led invasion is neither possible nor sensible. But the United States and all the other countries that willingly participated in this illegal war must at the very least be held financially and legally responsible, as Iraq was for its actions. The leaders of the UK, which is a signatory of the International Criminal Court, may be vulnerable to prosecution. The United States and United Kingdom would certainly veto any Security Council action to hold them responsible. But the UN should not hide behind that. Annan has the duty to bring this grave breach before the Security Council, where a debate would at least require the violators to expose their positions. The Secretary General ought to go to the General Assembly and any other UN bodies that can take action and attempt to enforce the law.
Annan should realise that his policy of evasiveness, fence-sitting and avoiding offence to powerful countries has neither restrained these countries nor halted the erosion of UN authority. The most egregious example next to Iraq relates to the ongoing Israeli war to colonise and absorb the occupied Palestinian territories and crush by force all legitimate resistance. Annan has pointedly refused to recognise that Palestinians have a right to self-defence against Israeli occupation and aggression, while issuing the weakest possible statements regarding Israeli actions and repeatedly affirming its "right to self- defence" against the countries and peoples it occupies. And Annan has served as enabler and chief apologist for the so-called "Quartet", an unofficial, US-inspired body that serves no purpose but to sideline the UN from solving the Israeli problem and restoring freedom to the Palestinians. The Quartet is intended to disguise the fact that the US alone is making all decisions in this arena, and all those decisions have been in Israel's favour and in direct violation of UN resolutions, the Charter and the Geneva Conventions. Instead of denouncing this hoax and charade, Annan has busied himself with conferences on anti-Semitism, inspired by and intended to appease New York-based extremist pro-Israeli organisations which repeat the slander that the UN is "anti-Semitic" every time the body dares utter a word about Israel's escalating crimes.
Of course, one understands the reality that the UN cannot impose any decision on the United States and that the Secretary General has little independent power. But Annan has exercised considerable independent authority when it suited him to do so. In one notorious example, the Security Council ordered the Secretary General to conduct an investigation into Israel's attack on the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002 (Resolution 1405). When Israel refused to allow the inspectors in, in defiance of the resolution, even after Annan fully accepted Israel's obstacles and conditions for the commission's composition, Annan, on his own authority and without any reasonable explanation, disbanded the Security Council-mandated investigation team and issued a misleading report compiled from press clippings that was hailed by Israel as a great propaganda victory. His timidity with respect to the escalating conflicts in Iraq and Palestine contrasts with his outspokenness and initiative with respect to the Darfur crisis in Sudan. Had Annan gone to Gaza, as he went to Darfur, for instance, he might have embarrassed Israel into halting the ongoing mass destruction of refugees' homes in Rafah and other areas.
Notwithstanding Annan's failings, the office of Secretary General enjoys enormous moral authority and a unique role granted by every member state of the United Nations through its Charter. Even if his only real power is that of the bully pulpit, he should use it. If Annan were simply to speak the truth clearly and act with consistency and integrity, it would carry more weight than the politically motivated and self-serving vetoes that have turned the Security Council into a mere tool of the powerful states. But if Annan is unwilling to do even that, he ought to ask himself what in the world he is there for.
Ambassador Hasan Abu Nimah is former Permanent Representative of Jordan at the United Nations. Ali Abunimah is co-founder of the websites Electronic Iraq and The Electronic Intifada.
I hear a giant sucking noise and it's coming from the UN. Might as well just close up shop.
The U.N. also seems to be going the way of CBS. Only a little over a quarter of our citizenry feels that the organization reflects American values. Kofi Annan was blind to the greatest financial scandal of our time, one that contributed to the deaths of thousands in Iraq and enriched cronies, including perhaps his own son. He survives only because a biased media has judged that his progressivism warrants shielding him from the type of scrutiny afforded Halliburton.
Under Mr. Annan, the U.N. won't say a word about Tibet or do anything about the thousands butchered in Africa — how can it when murdering states such as Cuba, Algeria, and Iran are on its committees overseeing human rights? Kofi Annan's U.N. has lost its ideals, become counterfeit, and thus is now mostly irrelevant.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The terrorists are escalating the violence. As long as our soldiers and Marines are kicking their @sses then I'm okay with the escalation.
The most generous theory for Annan's equivocation up to this point is that he wanted to preserve the neutrality of the UN...
Herein lies the problem. The UN tries so hard to be neutral that it can't bring itself to call evil what it is: evil.
The UN, by appearing as the handmaiden of the occupation, seems to have lost all credibility with Iraqis.
Lost all credibility with me, too.
The rest of this article makes me sick to my stomach.
the war was legal because the usa said so. there is no other authority.
"The most generous theory for Annan's equivocation up to this point is that he wanted to preserve the neutrality of the UN and with that, any potential role in postwar Iraq, for the benefit of the Iraqi people and the good of the world."
That's a pipe dream! Coughie is so biased towards Arabs, nothing will change his thinking.
It's time to get us out of the UN! Politicians...STOP GIVING OUR HARD EARNED MONEY TO THIS CORRUPT, VILE ORGANIZATION!
"Admission?" WTF is he talking about? He may admit his own guilt as an incompetent and corrupt UN SecGen, but he's got no business trying to lay it on us after all the interminable BS that the UN went through before we pulled the trigger!
this is about oil for food . he is playing hard ball to get the oil for food deal cut for his son who was incharge of oil for food.....
wake up...... its about his family making money and being called out... there is major hard ball going on ...... and its about money.....
What's that supposed to mean, newbie?
I hear meows and deep purring.........
FMCDH(BITS)
I'm aware of the oil-for-food scam and Annan's up to his neck in it. What I was referring to, initially, was the reporter who had the cojones to call Annan's phony backstab an "admission!"
I should have gone the way of the League of Nations long ago (it should never have been started).
It was designed by communists, for communists, and has been run by communists since it's inception.
Get us out of the UN and the UN out of the US!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.