Kofi Annan: Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter

[Chewbacca]

Looks like using Resolution 1441 to justify the Iraq war officially has no weight.


Link


Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions.

Mr Annan also questioned whether it will be feasible on security grounds to go ahead with the first planned election in Iraq scheduled for January. "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he said.

His remarks come amid a marked deterioration of the situation on the ground, an upsurge of violence that has claimed 200 lives in four days and raised questions over the ability of the interim Iraqi government and the US-led coalition to maintain control over the country.

They also come as Mr Blair is trying to put the controversy over the war behind him in the run-up to the conference season, a new parliamentary term and next year's probable general election.

The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".

Both Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.

No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.

However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.

Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.

[Oblivion437]

Now they're contradicting their own rules as it suits them? Well shit, now I want to evict those idiots even more.

Besides, are you sure you want to rely on the UN's opinion on...anything?

These are the people who put Cuba and Libya on the Human Rights Commission...

Besides that, we were at the time half the council, incase you'd forgotten. Hell, any UN operation involving muscle was really a US operation...Not that I want the UN to have its own military, nor do I want the US to contribute to such a firepit.

[ 09-16-2004, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

[Morgeruat]

You know I hate to admit it but I did like that Clinton had the balls to tell them to stuff the UN dues up their collective {memnoch*} and refused to pay it (ok he was more politically correct than that, but it's the same idea)

*moderadtor's name substituted for gratuitous profanity

[ 09-16-2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Timber Loftis]

I've gone into great detail about this before, but it's been ages. Along about the time of the first invasion, I believe. Anyway, You can't just look at the UN Charter and 1441. You've got to look at all the resolutions, including the cease fire agreement, which was conditional (and made the US's discontinuance of action conditional) on Saddam following UN dictates (which he failed, failed, failed, and failed to do).

I may have wished the US would have waited to get a further resolution, and I may think it was unwise to go to Iraq. But, illegal it was not. Sorry, all this article does is simply convince me I'm a more competent authority on international law that Mr. Anan is. Which confirms the award I got in school for it. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[ 09-16-2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

LOL -- I'd hate to have something shoved up my memnoch, Morgeruat. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

[ 09-16-2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Davros]

Sure it was illegal, but like most people, I prefer to believe in the same fictions that TL believes in.

[Timber Loftis]

Care to explainify what you mean? Or just being quipish?

I don't think it's a wonky legal fiction to point out that a cease fire is an agreement to stop shooting... for now. It's not a peace accord.

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: You know I hate to admit it but I did like that Clinton had the balls to tell them to stuff the UN dues up their collective {memnoch*} and refused to pay it (ok he was more politically correct than that, but it's the same idea) *moderadtor's name substituted for gratuitous profanity

I have no problem with you using my name as a stopper if it will save you from a holiday due to swearing, Morgie. But it's the intent more than the word itself which is the issue, unfortunately... [img]redface.gif[/img]

[ 09-16-2004, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[Morgeruat]

not quite sure what you're saying there...

<-- dense...

are you saying that substituting words doesn't clear one from the negativity of implied swearing, which is what would lead to the unplanned vacation from posting?

[Davros]

So by that argument TL, if Tehran and Damascus and Jordan decided it was time to have lunch in Tel Aviv because Israel also ignores UN resolutions - their war would not be illegal either? Well either they both are or they both aren't - surely?