UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has finally parted from his diplomatic euphemisms and plainly stated that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.
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."
...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.
BBC article
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."
...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.
Carrying out the wishes of the Security Council although the Security Council members were against the invasion. If we say it, it's true. That's how words matter.
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.
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.
I suppose the huge difference in that Kosovars were being slaughtered on a daily basis in the "ethnic cleansing" taking place there, and the fact that there was peace in Iraq before we laid down a carpet of bombs, is meaningless to "its proponents" when they offer up the "Kosovo defence".
Words, however, do matter in diplomacy and policy. Which is another major reason that George Dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers Bush is unqualified for the presidency.
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.
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.
Yeah, it's French.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!