pomod said:
Last week Kofi Annan explicitly stated to the BBC that the war in Iraq was illegal, no news here to millions of people all over the world but contentious still in certain conservative circles in the US, England and Australia, (i.e., the countries who circumvented a UN authorization.) The defense of those governments is that Iraq’s failure to comply with various UN resolutions since the Gulf war warranted the use of force. However, at the same time those same government’s lead by the US site the UN’s failure to sufficiently deal with the situation as part of their rational in claiming their sovereign right to use force, undermining the credibility and democratic authority of the UN in the process. This is a contradiction and another example of type of double standard we are used to seeing in US foreign policy.
But, whatever, none of this is news to anyone here and I would guess that most of you here are either for this notion or against it. I want to ask should the architects of the Iraq war face trial and some sort of censure under international law? But, I already know how divisive the response would be in this somewhat polarized forum. So instead I would like to pose the following questions.
1. Should the international community function as a democracy?
2. If "the war on terrorism” as this has been defined is indeed a global war is some sort of international consensus needed in the application of force?
3. What is the best way to deal with a rogue country who acts in contempt of the international community?
4. If such a rogue nation is also a superpower should they be governed by the same set of international laws and principals and dealt with equally?
And my questions would be.....
1. If this is an illegal war, what international law was violated?
2. In Kofi Annan's declaration that the war in Iraq is illegal, he accuses the United States, Britian and its allies of the very serious crime of violating the UN charter. If he really believes that international law has been violated, why has he not taken action against the United States and her allies for changing the regime of another UN member?
3. Why have no other UN members sought out a special session of the Security Council in which to produce evidence of the alleged illegal acts and demand redress?
4. Since no other UN member has sought out a special session of the Security Council, why hasn't Kofi Annan himself asked the Security Council to convene and deal with the charges of illegal action? He has both the power and duty to do so if he truly believes this is an illegal war.
5. How can an organization, whose chief executive accuses the principal members of its board of violating its charter with impunity, be taken seriously?
6. Why didn't Annan resign when he clearly saw that the U.N. Charter was being violated by a group of "rogue states" led by America? And why, if the toppling of Saddam was illegal, is the U.N. helping consolidate regime change in Iraq by supervising elections for a new government?
Once again the UN does what it excels at. Nothing. The UN passes meaningless, toothless resolution after resolution, yet they fail to enforce them. The action taken by the United States and its allies was backed by no fewer than 12 mandatory Security Council resolutions. UN Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted in November of 2002, gave Hussein “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations,” which included its production of a “currently accurate, full and complete declaration” of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and weapons programs within 30 days. Furthermore, the resolution – adopted unanimously – “Recalls…that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face
serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.”