:
Posted on 09/11/2002 9:10:08 PM PDT by USA21
Annan Urges No Unilateral Action Against Iraq
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan will tell President Bush on Thursday that only the United Nations can sanction the use of force against Iraq.
Annan, without mentioning possible U.S. plans to attack Iraq, says any country can defend itself when attacked.
"But beyond that, when states decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations," he will tell the U.N. General Assembly, according to prepared remarks.
Annan, who also challenges U.S. policy by renewing a call for an international conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, speaks shortly before Bush sets out for the assembly his case for action against Iraq.
Bush is expected to challenge the United Nations to enforce post-Gulf War resolutions demanding Iraq disarm. The United States believes Iraq is developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
"I'm going to the United Nations to give this speech for a reason, because I believe this is an international problem, and that we must work together to deal with the problem," Bush said on Tuesday.
A U.N. official said Annan's speech was being released early so it would not be overshadowed by Bush's address. A copy of his remarks was given to U.S. officials.
"The more a country makes use of multilateral institutions -- thereby respecting shared values, and accepting the obligations and restraints inherent in those values -- the more others will trust and respect it, and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership," Annan says.
He says member states had shown they were willing to take actions under the authority of the U.N. Security Council they would not be willing to take without it.
"Even the most powerful countries know that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims," Annan says in a carefully crafted speech.
Many European, Arab and other nations have voiced dismay at a U.S. drive to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and halt his alleged attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction -- with or without approval by the U.N. Security Council.
>
Annan himself said this month it would be "unwise to attack Iraq" and that it would raise international tensions.
IRAQI DEFIANCE
Annan will tell the General Assembly that Iraq is defying Security Council resolutions, saying the return of U.N. arms inspectors is the "indispensable first step" to assuring the world that Iraq's deadly weapons have been scrapped and toward the suspension and eventual ending of U.N. sanctions.
"If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities," Annan declares, in a formula that clearly does not rule out U.N.-authorized military action such as that mounted by the U.S.-led coalition that drove Iraqi occupation troops from Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War.
The Bush administration worked closely with the United Nations to get support for a struggle against terrorism after last year's Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
But on other issues it has irritated many of its European and other allies by spurning global initiatives such as the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gases and treaties against biological weapons, nuclear testing and land mines.
It has fiercely opposed the new International Criminal Court, sided with conservative Islamic states on women's health issues and cut off funds to the U.N. Population Fund.
The United States continues to accrue new debts to the world body and is now $1.2 billion in arrears for dues and peacekeeping expenses, despite an agreement in December 2000 from U.N. members to reduce the American contribution.
MIDDLE EAST CONFERENCE
Annan will call for an international conference "without delay" to seek a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East conflict, saying Israel and the Palestinians accept the vision of a two-state solution and an end to terror and to occupation.
"We can reach it only if we move rapidly and in parallel on all fronts," Annan says.
The United States has stopped advocating an international conference that it had proposed, and in a June 24 speech, Bush laid the onus on the Palestinians to change their leadership and halt violence before political progress could be achieved.
On Afghanistan, Annan says President Hamid Karzai's government needs help to extend its authority throughout the country and that donors must honor their aid pledges.
"Otherwise the Afghan people will lose hope -- and desperation, we know, breeds violence," the secretary-general adds.
They should change their focus to sharing recipes. All they do is blame us for everything and then turn for help when in trouble. They're worse than teenagers.
The UN was irrelevent to the terrorists. The UN is irrelevent to us. The UN is irrelevent.
To hear the input of the UN on this matter is about as pointless as a sperm bank seeking a donation from a castrated pervert.
Hillary as president of the U.S. and him heading up the U.N.? Hmmmm...
MM
What self agrandisment of a paper sh!t bureaucracy that has no personal responsibility nor genuine representativeness of people worldwide. The US has more interest in preserving Afghani lives than the UN, LET US FACE IT.
:
Sounds like Bush is going to present his case to the world body for it's approval.Once, just once, it would be good to have a President with enough stones to tell the UN to piss off. I guess that we must now always have international (UN) approval to do what needs doing, have a multinational coalition to do it, and follow with UN peacekeeping and civilian disarmament when done.
Amen! Although I would amend that to include only nations with a constitution that ensured a limited republican form of government. That would exclude even the U.S. under our current form, whereby the majority of laws are usurped and then upheld by judicial fiat.
Annan will tell President Bush that only the United Nations can sanction the use of forceKofi, if you want to keep that illusion going, you had better get on board and sanction the use of force then.
Sincerely, George.
uh, I don't think so. Now get out of the US!!!
CONDITION OF STAYING IN THE UN THAT ONLY DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES GET A VOTE.I would rather only countries with limited government representational republics get votes. Democracy is very overrated, and is the friend of the populist-minded leftist demagogue.
The founding fathers rightly loathed democracy.
It's become taboo to speak ill of "democracy" but that is a taboo which conservatives need to destroy.
I am no longer amused.
Or what?
It is remarkable that of all the world's conflicts, there has not been a single one where the United Nations attempted to stop senseless killing and massacres in Africa and Asia where it was obvious that the parties had no inclination to even acknowledge that there is a U.N.
So. The deal is what? posturing against "friends" is the safe thing to do?
Posturing against the main contributor?
The host country?
Can you say "delusional"?
Megalomaniac?
Absurd.
For us to be in arrears, the UN would have to have the power to tax us-which they don't.
Like what?
The endless parade of phony resolutions introduced by Muslim Mass Murderers against Israel?
The shameless posturing of international leeches just sucking on the the U.S. financial teat?
Let's move the U.N. to Africa or the Middle East, and test its real value.
Obviously, this isn't the U.N of the 1940s. or the 1950s.
I know the real U.N., and this ain't it.
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.