Experts Debate UN Role In Possible US Attack On Iraq

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 1/23/03 | Lawrence Morahan

[kattracks]

Washington (CNSNews.com) - The United Nations is becoming increasingly irrelevant in terms of authorizing appropriate military responses to acts of terrorism or in taking action against member nations suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, U.N. experts said this week.

Their comments came as the Bush administration apparently edged closer to launching an invasion of Iraq without the U.N.'s explicit authorization and just days before U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is expected to update the U.N. Security Council on efforts to disarm Iraq.

According to the U.N. experts, who spoke at a forum Tuesday hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, the agendas of non-democratic countries on the U.N. Security Council often conflict with those of other countries like the U.S., who are seeking to pursue their moral right to defend themselves against overt and potential threats.

Cameroon, China, Guinea and Syria are current members of the Security Council.

While U.N. Resolution 1441 states that Iraq remains in material breach of council resolutions relating to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the resolution does not approve war against Iraq, noted Michael Glennon, a professor of international law at Tufts University in Massachusetts.

The United Nations requires that Baghdad give its weapons inspectors a complete declaration of all aspects of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missiles systems, as well as information on other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs that are supposed to be for civilian purposes. Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it does not comply, Resolution 1441 states.

Under the U.N. Charter, enacted in 1945, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible - in self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack, and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

With neither of those circumstances currently existing in the case of Iraq, the U.N. Charter would not permit the United States to use force against Iraq, Glennon said.

"Legally, it seems to me, we've entered a zone of twilight. The old rules have faded but the world has yet to agree on a set of new rules on who can order war," he said.

While policy makers still "talk the talk" of the charter, states no longer "walk the walk," Glennon said. There's a clash between the geo-political present and the traditional definition of justice, a clash between rhetoric and reality that "leads to no end of distortions and anomalies."

As an example, Glennon cited a recent statement by Secretary of State Colin Powell, that in the face of an Iraqi breach of Resolution 1441, the Security Council could decide whether military action was required. At the same time, Powell cautioned that the United States would reserve its option of acting outside the bounds of what the Security Council decided.

"How can the council's decision bind Iraq but not the United States?" Glennon asked.

For that matter, how can the United States consider it appropriate to use force against Iraq, in violation of the charter, for the purpose of getting Iraq to obey the charter? Glennon wondered.

As Glennon sees it, the United States is being asked to defer to a Security Council inspection regime that would never have been put in place but for threats of force by the United States against Iraq, made in violation of the United Nations Charter.

"We're in a topsy-turvy world in which it takes the threat of unilateralism to make possible the practice of multilateralism," Glennon added.

David J. Scheffer, senior vice president of the United Nations Association of the United States of America, noted that a lot of work has been done at the United Nations on the issue of the prevention of armed conflict.

But those efforts, which have been encouraged by Secretary General Kofi Annan, are also seen by the international community as a sign of greater acceptance by the United Nations of the use of military force in individual instances to prevent more horrific conflict in the future, Scheffer said.

"It's going to require an enormous amount of dialogue within the United Nations and consensus building to get there," Scheffer said. "But the secretary general actually embraces the concept of considering how we get there."

Submitting to the discipline of consensus building within the U.N. framework forces the United States to get its ducks in line and "to make sure that what we're arguing for has a basis in law and we could argue even in the U.N. Charter."

The U.N. structure has to be flexible enough to allow the use of force for just purposes, Scheffer said.

"The discipline of the Security Council is forcing us to make sure that we try to reach that state of making a persuasive enough case so that if we do have to act without explicit council authority, we can do so without long-term injury, not only to American foreign policy, but to international relations and the regulation of force in the future," he said.


E-mail a news tip to Lawrence Morahan.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

 

[CatoRenasci]

As the Birchers said in the '50s:

Get the U.S. out of the U.N.

This is the League of Nations Redux, with epigoni. I can even imagine Saddam Hussein addressing the U.N. pleading for help against American aggression in an unconscious parody of Haile Selassie's plea to the League of Nations.

We must be the bad guys, the Italians are on our side this time.... ;)

[Support Free Republic]

Donate, Or Snuggles The Fabric Softener Bear Gets It!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Enemy Of The State]

"As the Birchers said in the '50s"

Got news for you pal, they are still saying it today and so is anyone with half a brain.

[2timothy3.16]

Real easy, the President call in that un guy and says to him: “Coffee, here is how it works, you rubber stamp us and never do or say anything without checking with me for approval first, and I sigh the check. You open your mouth and fail to discipline germany and the frogs and I don’t sign the check!”

Why in the world are we still part of the UN? For what purpose are we still picking up the tap?

And when in the world will the likes of petey jennings and his ilk understand that germany and france are not our allies, they are against us and are therefore our enemies?

[Phebe]

kattracks said, "And when in the world will the likes of petey jennings and his ilk understand that germany and france are not our allies, they are against us and are therefore our enemies?"

I'm impressed: seems like very few understand that is actually what is going on --- the EU is gearing up to counter us, with France in the lead and Germany not far behind it. It's the main motivation for the fast EU federalization since we scared them so bad during the Serbia war. They couldn't stop us; our weapons were incredible; we won in 11 weeks, easily. That was a big mistake: now Europe is determined to unite and balance against the U.S.