Chapter 7 of the UN Charter
The UNSG is correct in his asseration that any action taken by a state against another nation state without the express approval of the UNSC is a direct violation of international law. I am just wondering what kind of lawyers represent the four governments above. They must be divorce lawyers or ambulance chasers.
Re: Honesty has its price
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sir Galahad: *
Kofi Annan told the BBC the decision to take action in Iraq contravened the UN charter and should have been made by the Security Council.....
[/QUOTE]
What Kofi says, Sad-Damn should have been kicked by USA, UK, Russia, China, and France.
Unfortunately Sadi’s A$$ was beaten by US, UK, Australia, and Japan along with other sundry UN members like Italy, Spain, Poland etc.
Strange! Kofi wanted Russia, China, and France to kick Sadi too? What does he think Sad-Damn was? A bean-bag or a spit-pale?
P.S. Russia, China, and France had 12 years to make up their minds. They instead took care of their pockets by supplying illegal stuff to Sad-Damn.
Though an interesting point of view. It does not address the matter that the unilateral action was illegal in the eyes of International Law and the UN Charter.
A far better analysis from the BBC:
The use of a single word in diplomacy can often mark a significant moment and the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s use of the word “illegal” about the war in Iraq is one such moment.
He has carefully avoided the word before.
His previous phrasing was to say that the war was “not in conformity with the UN Charter”.
Mr Annan tends to avoid directness
This was a typical diplomatic phrase designed to get over the meaning, but to avoid directness. It was not exactly a ringing phrase and Mr Annan was content with that.
Now, in a BBC interview, he has been pressed into using the word “illegal” and that is the word which will now be used everywhere to describe his position.
He has not changed his position. But his language has changed and that counts.
It is worth noting that he still hedged the word round with references to the UN Charter, but that will be largely ignored.
Diplomacy does not often like directness. Mr Annan is a diplomatic sort of diplomat.
I’ve indicated that [the Iraq war] was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal
Kofi Annan
UN Secretary General
Annan interview excerpts
The BBC’s Owen Bennett-Jones cleverly forced Mr Annan’s hand, just as a good lawyer will do to a witness in court. This is the exchange:
BBC: “So you don’t think there was legal authority for the war.”
Mr Annan: “I have made it clear, I have stated clearly, that it was not in conformity with the UN Charter.”
BBC: “It was illegal.”
Mr Annan: “Yes, if you wish.”
BBC: “It was illegal.”
Mr Annan: “Yes, I’ve indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”
The actual word was wrested from him as the final thing he said.
He probably did not intend to say it, but found that he could not avoid it.
Illegal
So why does he think it illegal?
In the interview, he remarked that Resolution 1441, passed on 8 November 2002, warned Iraq that there would be “serious consequences” if it did not comply with UN demands over its suspected weapons programmes.
Mr Annan said it should have been left to the UN Security Council, in a second resolution, to determine what those consequences were.
The United States and Britain argued they were carrying out the wishes of the Security Council and that their authority was based not just on Resolution 1441, but on previous UN resolutions.
The British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, issued a public statement of his outline argument, though he did not publish, or even give the members of the cabinet, his detailed reasoning.
He said the original Resolution 678 from 1990, which allowed for “all necessary means” to end Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait and “restore international peace and security” in the region, still applied.
It had been, he said, “revived” by Resolution 687 from 1991, which demanded that Iraq disarm. Since Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in breach of Resolution 687, the attorney general argued, there was authority to use force.
For opponents of the Iraq war, the use of the word “illegal” will confirm their arguments in a satisfactory way.
Supporters, including those who might not be wholly convinced by Lord Goldsmith’s argument, might rely on the so-called Kosovo defence.
The war by Nato against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999 was not authorised by the UN either, but was viewed by its proponents as a legitimate intervention to protect civilians.
Words matter
US Secretary of State Colin Powell used the word “genocide” last week to describe what has been going on in Darfur. A finding of genocide requires action under the UN Genocide Convention of 1948.
The absence of words also matters.
Resolution 242 after the 1967 war in the Middle East famously requires the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”.
There is no “the” in front of “territories” and its absence has meant Israel can claim to be in compliance as it has withdrawn from some of the territories.
Incidentally the French version says “des territoires” which does mean “from the territories” but this text is usually forgotten.
Don’t you just love those diplomats? 18 months after the fact he is still confused. If the UN had been doing it’s job, they would have indicted Saddam for Genocide against the Kurds in 1992…
Mr. Annan did not deny that it was not illegal. In the position he is in, you can not make open allegations unless you want to end up my Mr. Ghali.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sir Galahad: *
.....It does not address the matter that the unilateral action was illegal ....
[/QUOTE]
Nothing "uni-lateral" here.
Kofi OTOH wanted option #1 that is "penta-lateral" decision (USA, UK, Russia, China, and France).
Instead it was option #2 that is "bi-lateral" (US, and UK).
... The missing "tri-lateral" (Russia, France, and China) were in bed with Sad-Damn.
If you care to notice, Kofi doesn’t figure either in option #1, or option#2. So who cares what he has to say after the fact.
Well if it was a bi-lateral action, it is regardless illegal with regard to international laws and a violation of the UN Charter. Who cares what Mr. Annan says? Well obviously the countries that have reacted so harshly to the truth.
Sir G:
So Kofi has expressed his opinion that the actions in Iraq were contrary to the UN Charter and illegal. So what? You seem to accept that this expression of opinion makes it so. Something is netiher legal nor illegal just because Kofi says so. There is nothing in the UN Charter that says the Secretary General is the final arbiter of what constitutes a violation of the UN Charter.
It's just one more opinion thrown into the mix.
With that logic myvoice, it is irrelevant what the opinion of the American President is, because after all regardless of what he says it is just another opinion thrown into the mix. A man and his position affect the weight allotted to the opinion. The point I implied was that as the UNSG he is the head of the only political organization that aims to bring stability and peace to the world without a military aim (unlike NATO). He is the man who represents the UN in all issues. If he feels that the act is legal (which it is, there is no contention on that issue), it shows that the UN has been made ineffective and side-lined; a very dangerous precedent for other undemocratic and dictatorial regimes.
Secondly, he has stated that it is illegal yet countries blindly state it is not. What I find more worrying than that the action was illegal, is that these governments are deluding themselves and purposely to ensure that their own policies are implemented. That is again extremely dangerous for the average citizen.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sir Galahad: *
With that logic myvoice, it is irrelevant what the opinion of the American President is, because after all regardless of what he says it is just another opinion thrown into the mix. A man and his position affect the weight allotted to the opinion. The point I implied was that as the UNSG he is the head of the only political organization that aims to bring stability and peace to the world without a military aim (unlike NATO). He is the man who represents the UN in all issues. If he feels that the act is legal (which it is, there is no contention on that issue), it shows that the UN has been made ineffective and side-lined; a very dangerous precedent for other undemocratic and dictatorial regimes.
Secondly, he has stated that it is illegal yet countries blindly state it is not. What I find more worrying than that the action was illegal, is that these governments are deluding themselves and purposely to ensure that their own policies are implemented. That is again extremely dangerous for the average citizen.
[/QUOTE]
Sir G:
I didn't say Kofi's opinion was irrelevant. It is relevant but it's still just an opinion. The opinion of the President of the US on whether the action was legal or illegal is also relevant but it is not determinative. On the issue of the legality or illegality of the Iraq action, the only thing there are is opinions. Some believe it to be legal. Some believe it to be illegal. Since you have the opinion that it is illegal, you think that people who hold a contrary view are doing so blindly. I'm sure there are people who think the action was legal who also believe it is you who are blindly believing in something rather than thinking it through.
Well that is well and true. But what provisions would you use to defend that the war was legal if you do believe it was legal?
^^
The link to the bbc article posted by Ohio Guy discusses some of the legal justification for the Iraq war. This link ( http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html ) takes you to a pretty good article dealing with the Legal Issues surrounding the War with Iraq. I think both sides of the debate can bring up good arguments.
In my own personal view, our action was “justified” regardless of whether it complied with the UN Charter. I don’t think Saddam would have hesitated for a second in assisting some terrorist group to strike the US with chemical, biological or radiological devices. If Putin is to be believed, Russian intelligence supplied the US with information regarding Saddam’s sponsorship of planned attacks against US interests and in the US. On 911, our country was attacked and I don’t think my government shouild wait for the next attack before trying to defend us. I think we should identify the threat and then eliminate it. UN or no UN.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sir Galahad: *
.... what provisions would you use to defend that the war was legal if you do believe it was legal?
[/QUOTE]
Talking about legalities of war. A quick question about another war from recent past.
Was the war against Serbia and Melosovich regime legal?
Also
Do you look at the legality from UN, or Serbia, or Middle East?
MyVoice,
An interesting sidelight fromt the memoirs that Gen Tommy Franks just published. In the run up to the war, he visited with heads-of-state around the region. He said every one of them, particularly Jordan warned him that Saddam had WMD, and they had no doubt that he would use them. If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that the terrorist is among the "delivery systems" a country could employ to deliver a weapon. What's more, the terrorists would allow the state to maintain deniability, rendering a retaliatory strike difficult to justify. I have seen nothing believable that Saddam had contact with AlQaedda, but the Nexus was too compelling to ignore. The delivery of Biological/Chemical weapons after 9/11 went from a theoretical possibility to a highly possible scenario. There is nothing that would have prohibited Saddam from recruiting Palestinians, or creating his own terrorist group to deliver WMD.
Thus Bush's "premption theory", and right of self defense are somewhat more credible. (And why not sue the UN for negligence in not indicting Saddam?) I they had been doing their jobs correctly, bringing genocidal tyrants to justice, perhaps the whole thing could have been avoided.