Annan: Iraq War Illegal

Thanks, Kofi - we knew that. So what are you going to do about it? Ask for sanctions on the US? Call for a trial for George Bush? Oh, wait - nothing, right? What a surprise.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1200210.htm

United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan says the United States decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 was "illegal".

Australia was a key supporter of the war on Iraq and sent troops to joined the United States-led invasion last year.

Mr Annan's comments are likely to reignite debate over whether US President George W Bush, Prime Minister John Howard and British Prime Minister Tony Blair acted within the bounds of international law by failing to get a final UN Security Council resolution on Iraq.

Speaking in an interview with BBC World Service radio, Mr Annan says the UN Security Council should have issued a second resolution, if a US-led invasion of Iraq was to be allowed.

"I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution," he said.

"Yes, if you wish. I've indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN Charter from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."

The UN Charter is one of the cornerstones of international law.

Mr Annan says that given the current level of violence and unrest, it is unlikely that Iraq would be able to hold credible elections as planned in January 2005.

"I think there have been lessons for the US and lessons for the UN and other member states," he said.

"I think that, in the end, everybody's concluded that it is best to work together with our allies and through the UN to deal with some of these issues.

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time...without UN approval and much broader support from the international community."

The council had adopted a number of resolutions over the years to compel Saddam Hussein to abandon the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

The final resolution was adopted in November 2002, when UN inspectors re-entered Iraq, warning the Iraqi regime of "serious consequences" if it was found to be in material breach of the earlier resolutions.

Mr Annan says the decision on whether to act on Iraq should have been made by the UN. "It was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be," he said.

Mr Annan told a news conference in The Hague, Netherlands, shortly before the invasion that if the United States took military action without Security Council approval "it would not be in conformity with the Charter".

The United States and Britain withdrew a draft resolution in the council in mid-March after it was clear there were not enough votes.

France had threatened to veto the draft if UN inspectors were not given more time to account for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

-- AFP/Reuters

 

Lets also remember that this man called the war in kosovo illegal. A war to stop genocide illegal? *shrugs* Sometimes the UN just fails. It failed with kosovo, and it failed with iraq.

 

Bleh, if anything this only proves how worthless the UN is. At this point in time, the UN is no more able to stop WWIII from happening than the League of Nations was able to stop Hitler.

 

According to INTERNATIONAL LAW, wars can't be waged without international consent, unless there is an immediate threat to a nation (this is why it was so important for Bush to continually lie about the "threat" Iraq posed).


ANY military action can be justified, if you look at it the way you suggest. A leader can say they are attacking to "help" the attackee, to stop the overthrow of a government (as in the case of Saddam gassing the kurds), whatever - but the FACT is that those nations who have signed on to the UN charter and the Geneva Convention (LIKE THE UNITED STATES) have agreed to a set of laws. And when they don't follow them, they should be sanctioned. We shouldn't have to rely on the word of any one government head about why it's "necessary" for him to invade a country - especially one as clearly dishonest as George Bush.

If we aren't going to follow international law, we should remove ourselves from the UN and allow them to run things without our input.

 

Then international law is flawed. If international law helps keep tyrants and mass murderers in power, it is flawed.

 

We should not have to be the sole stength of the UN, just the big pitbull that they decide to call out when some heads need to be smashed (like in Kosovo), but otherwise just stay in our cage and take orders from France. There need to be a few changes.

First, it would help if those declarations and proclamations became worth more than the paper that they're printed on, maybe enforce one or two of them without starving innocent citizens to get the message accross. And sanctions need to be abandoned altogether, we all see how well sanctions are working in North Korea, their people are some of the poorest around while they manage an army of over a million in a country the size of Pennsylvania, with nukes. And sanctions did a lot of good in removing Saddam too.

In it's present state, the UN is worthless with or without us. If we did remove ourselves, it might give them a little incentive to shape up, which would be a good thing.

 

But we have sanctions.......and sanctions are perfect..........

 

Far more than laws intended to reduce war, western nations like the US help to keep tyrants and despots in power by FUNDING THEM. International law is intended to use every tool PRIOR to war, because the VAST MAJORITY of people killed in war are innocent civilians, NOT soldiers.

It is incredibly hypocritical to sit on the sidelines calling for war when you know you won't be one of the innocent people to lose their lives - or their children's lives. And incredibly arrogant for one country to think that it has the right to "decide" who is right in a conflict and go in killing people. Especially when the US has been WRONG in so many cases. As I've said before, some historians speculate that the US maurading into Kosovo actually increased ethnic cleansing and caused more deaths in the end. That, of course, is irrelevant to americans, who rarely risk much of anything in these conflicts - except the lives of the mostly-poor kids who get sent to do your dirty work. And who cares about them?

 

If it is hypocritical for me to sit ont he sidelines calling for war, then it is hypocritical for you to sit on the sidelines denouncing war while you arent one of the ones suffering under brutal dictators.

Dont worry, the UN has sanctions, all the worlds problems will be fixed with sanctions. They killed over half a million iraqis..i'm sure saddam was just about to give in right before we tossed him out of power.

 

The last thing I want is another pointless bitching thread. I've given my ideas and thoughts on what the UN should do, what are yours?

 

Well my ideas about UN reforms (as max knows) are well known so I won’t bore you here, but I would like to ask megara what his ideas for bringing about a better world are?

The thing is one of the major obstacles to UN reform is the US and one of the major sources of some of the worlds problems have been American.

Tyrants the US has supported those

Mass murderers the US has supported those

Remember when Saddam regime was at its bloodiest when thousands of Iraqis were being killed and the Kurds were being gassed, THE US SUPPORTED SADDAM.

As to international law the US is quick to cite it when it wants, remember the fuss over the US soldiers being shown on Iraqi TV? The Bush admin shouted international law then and told the Iraqis that there would be consequences if they didn’t comply with International law.

The US has used sanctions in the past and it still uses sanctions

What megara is your big idea?

Well my ideas about UN reforms (as max knows) are well known so I won’t bore you here, but I would like to ask megara what his ideas for bringing about a better world are?

The thing is one of the major obstacles to UN reform is the US and one of the major sources of some of the worlds problems have been American.

Tyrants the US has supported those

Mass murderers the US has supported those

Remember when Saddam regime was at its bloodiest when thousands of Iraqis were being killed and the Kurds were being gassed, THE US SUPPORTED SADDAM.

As to international law the US is quick to cite it when it wants, remember the fuss over the US soldiers being shown on Iraqi TV? The Bush admin shouted international law then and told the Iraqis that there would be consequences if they didn’t comply with International law.

The US has used sanctions in the past and it still uses sanctions

What megara is your big idea?

 

Why did you repeat yourself entirely twice over, Balbus?

 

My idea? Entirely simple.

Punish mass murderers and tyrants.

I dont care who supports them.

 

Those who support them as Washington does are therefore accomplices and enablers of their atrocities and equally as guilty. Get the tyrants, fine, but don't forget to chain up our leaders right next to them in the docket.

 

equally as guilty? I assume you prescribe to the idea that the gunmaker is equally as guilty as the murderer?

 

"Yes, if you wish. I've indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN Charter from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."

You can interpert his words as you like..our minds are already made up , its just made the original poster (and people that agree) feel like they were right ... just another thread about this wars ilegtimacy ... bush being the devil blah blah blah... yawn... carry on though .

 

i think you mean to say "subscribe", Megara, and no i dont subscribe to that idea. I DO subscribe to the idea that those who aided and abetted and enabled tyrants whether through political whitewashing of their crimes, financial support and even covert assistance through our intelligence services are indeed "accomplices".

If that basic precept of criminal law escapes you, I suggest you go read up on the guilt of complicity.

Then turn your focus to the warm relations between Bush & Co. and Karimov of Uzbekistan for starters. Although, no doubt youve got some lame excuse for why Bush's claimed regard for "Human Dignity" is perfectly legitimate even as we deny such dignity with the simple moniker of "terrorist" almost on a daily basis to countless thousands around the globe without the slightest question from the sheep.

Baaaa baaaaa baaaaa!

 

Of course they are guilty, but equally as guilty? Come on. you're stretching on this one.

There is a difference between being criminally negligent and 1st degree murder/genocide/warcrimes.

As i said before though, mass murderers and tyrants need to be punished.


also i thought this was an apt quote for the earlier part of this thread.


The main thing that endears the United Nations to member governments, and so enables it to survive, is its proven capacity to fail. You can safely appeal to the United Nations in the comfortable certainty that it will let you down.
Conor Cruise O'Brien 1917-, Irish Historian, Critic, and Statesman

 

"Criminal negligence" and "complicity" in the commission of a crime are two distinctly different concepts in criminal law friend. Once again, before spouting your ridiculous excuses, go actually learn the principles involved.

 

Megara, you even regurgitate the slogans of others in your post without any conscious realistation of the inaccuracy of what you quote!

Look at your quote and the date of the statement and perhaps even you can figure out what is wrong with that picture.