The UN - has it lost its teeth?

[Flatlander]

U.S. allies reject Annan charge Iraq war was illegal

excerpts:

Britain and Australia rejected Thursday an assertion by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the war in Iraq was “illegal” because Washington and its coalition partners never obtained Security Council approval.

In 2003, however, in the buildup to the Iraq war, the United States dropped an attempt to get a Security Council resolution approving the invasion when it became clear it would not pass.

“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,” Mr. Annan told the BBC.

At the time, he had underlined the lack of legitimacy for a war without UN approval, saying: “If the United States and others were to go outside the Security Council and take unilateral action they would not be in conformity with the charter.”

On Wednesday, after being asked three times whether the lack of council approval meant the war was illegal, Mr. Annan said: “From our point of view and the (UN) charter point of view, it was illegal.”

The Australian Prime Minister praised the humanitarian work of the United Nations but said the organization was too often “paralyzed” by the need for consensus among its members, pointing to the crisis in Sudan.

“The body is paralyzed. It is not doing much and the reason is you can't get agreement among the major powers,” Mr. Howard said.

The coalition of the willing has undertaken an action that is deemed illegal and against the UN charter. If it is possible to do such a thing without repercussions, does this undermine the legitimacy and usefulness of the UN as a global entity, in terms of the application of international law? Has the UN lost its teeth? If so, is there a way to restore that credibility? If we can't 'give the UN it's teeth back', what does this mean for international relations, and the future application of international law? Seems to me we're moving in the wrong direction here.

 

[loki09789]

When did it really have any teeth? I am not trying to be sarcastic. I don't think I remember a time when the UN really was a decisive and clear direction type of organization.

With the EU immergence, I think you will find it is going to be even more clunky than before.

 

[lvwhitebir]

The coalition of the willing has undertaken an action that is deemed illegal and against the UN charter.

It wasn't deemed illegal. One man voiced his opinion. Others have argued the other side. Until it goes to an international court for a decision, that's all we'll ever get.

If it is possible to do such a thing without repercussions, does this undermine the legitimacy and usefulness of the UN as a global entity, in terms of the application of international law? Has the UN lost its teeth? If so, is there a way to restore that credibility?

The UN's teeth is in its membership and is only as strong as the members are. If a strong section of its membership did something illegal, what could anybody else do? The most we can hope for is that if it's found to be an illegal act, some restitution is payed, although we're paying enough now.

WhiteBirch

 

[PeachMonkey]

When did it really have any teeth? I am not trying to be sarcastic. I don't think I remember a time when the UN really was a decisive and clear direction type of organization.

I can think of one clear example (and will try to come up with others through research, though no promises):

The response to North Korea's invasion of South Korea. With the Soviet Union boycotting and Taiwan holding China's seat at the Security Council, the Security Council responded two days after the invasion with Resolution 85, which asked members of the United Nations to assist the Republic of Korea in defending itself from armed attack, and identified the United States as the executive agent to implement the resolution and direct UN operations in Korea.

South Korea received assistance from 15 additional UN members' armed forces: Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France, Canada, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Greece, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Colombia, the Philippines, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

 

[MisterMike]

U.S. allies reject Annan charge Iraq war was illegal

excerpts:

The coalition of the willing has undertaken an action that is deemed illegal and against the UN charter. If it is possible to do such a thing without repercussions, does this undermine the legitimacy and usefulness of the UN as a global entity, in terms of the application of international law? Has the UN lost its teeth? If so, is there a way to restore that credibility? If we can't 'give the UN it's teeth back', what does this mean for international relations, and the future application of international law? Seems to me we're moving in the wrong direction here.

Found this today from Powell:

Asked about Annan's comments during an interview with The Washington Times' editorial board, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said the coalition's actions in Iraq were "entirely legal and legal in accordance with U.N. Security Councils of the past." He rejected Annan's use of the word "illegal."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq

Seems the charter is a open to a bit of interpretation if some think it is legal and other's don't. Or it could be election time.

 

[AaronLucia]

Screw the UN.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, I think first we should be aware of the Secretary General's conversation. I have posted a link to the transcript, and some of the transcript below. The Secretary had said last March, prior to the invasion that, if the invasion occurred, it would not be in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The only thing new here, is that the BBC interviewer pressed Annan for the use of the word 'illegal', as you can see below.

I also agree, that the United Nations has never really had very strong teeth to begin with. It's strength is supposed to be in 'collective bargaining'.

I think, however, the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a signatory country, is clear about the use of force.

Article 51 states member nations may use force in self-defense, "if an armed attack occurs". Of course, the United States did not suffer an "armed attack' from Iraq.

Article 42 states member nations may use force for "operations by air, sea and land" if directed by the Security Council to 'maintain or restore international peace and security" if other actions outlined in Article 41 have proved to be inadequate.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661640.stm

Question (Q): Now elections, as you know, are due to be held in Iraq in January. Is it going to be possible to do that?

Kofi Annan (A): There's a lot that needs to be done. We have helped the Iraqis set up a legal framework for elections. Despite the security situation, I took a calculated risk and sent in two teams: one led by [Lakhdar] Brahimi, that helped them set up the interim government and another one led by Karina Pereira, who is the head of our electoral division and we helped them set up the legal framework for election political parties law, an independent electoral commission. And we've had some of the officers trained in Mexico and ready to go.

And there are quite a lot of things the Iraqis have to do themselves. We will advise and assist them, they will be running the elections not us. We will be giving advice and assistance and I hope they will be able to do everything they have to do but of course security will be a factor.

Q: But do you honestly expect elections in January? It sounds impossible.

A: You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now.

Q: And so you're saying there's a good chance there will not be elections in January?

A: Well the judgement - the main judgement - will have to be done, the judgement will have to be made by the Iraqi government which is going to run the elections who will be supporting them. Obviously there may come a time when we have to make our own independent assessment.

'Painful lessons'

Q: Are you bothered that the US is becoming an unrestrainable, unilateral superpower?

A: Well, I think over the last year, we've all gone through lots of painful lessons. I'm talking about since the war in Iraq. I think there has been lessons for the US and there has been lessons for the UN and other member states and I think in the end everybody is concluding that it is best to work together with our allies and through the UN to deal with some of these issues. And I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time.

Q: Done without UN approval - or without clearer UN approval?

A: Without UN approval and much broader support from the international community.

Q: I wanted to ask you that - do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done?

A: Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be.

Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?

A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, if you wish.

Q: It was illegal? A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.

 

[lvwhitebir]

I think, however, the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a signatory country, is clear about the use of force.

The Butler Report (p183) has a good write-up on why the British believed the invasion to be legal. It claims that "resolution 678 (1990) gave to Member States to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area. That authorisation was suspended but not terminated by Security Council resolution (SCR) 687 (1991, and revived by SCR 1441 (2002. In SCR 1441, the Security Council has determined -
(1) that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) constitutes a threat to international peace and security;
(2) that Iraq as failed - in clear violation of its legal obligations - to disarm;
and
(3) that, in consequence, Iraq is in material breach of the conditions for the ceasefire laid down by the Council in SCR 687 at the end of the hostilities in 1991, thus reviving the authorisation in SCR 678."


It goes on to say that SCR 1441 reiterated that SCR 678 was still in force and that it was agreed that Iraq was non-compliant. It also explains that 1441 didn't require a new resolution of the Council to approve hostilities.

So, in short, the UN actually gave permission to use hostilities back in 1990 in the first Gulf War.

WhiteBirch

 

[Jeff Boler]

You know what, screw the UN. They are about as corrupt as they get anyway. Oil for food....sound familiar?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yeah! It's like their President has extensive ties to oil companies and corporations, and their VP sat on the boards of corporations that subsequently got no-bid military contracts, and they both had ties to energy traders that are now under indictment....

Hey, wait a minnit....

 

[PeachMonkey]

It goes on to say that SCR 1441 reiterated that SCR 678 was still in force and that it was agreed that Iraq was non-compliant. It also explains that 1441 didn't require a new resolution of the Council to approve hostilities.

Interesting how you missed the parts of SCR 1441 that establish a time period for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to inspect Iraq and report back on its compliance; those agencies did so, and reported back. Neither agency concluded that their jobs were done and hostilities needed to open, and neither did the UN Security Council.

The "coalition" decided that the combination of documentary noncompliance reported by UNMOVIC and the IAEA along with evidence that the US and Britain claimed to have were sufficient to act without Security Council support. Since this intelligence has been shown to be wrong (if not completely falsified), we went to war over documents.

I'm certainly proud of all the Iraqi deaths and American deaths, now and in the future (from stirring up the hornet's nest), over documentation.

At least we got Saddam out of there. Although that wasn't the idea.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Interesting how you missed the parts of SCR 1441 that establish a time period for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to inspect Iraq and report back on its compliance; those agencies did so, and reported back. Neither agency concluded that their jobs were done and hostilities needed to open, and neither did the UN Security Council.

I didn't miss anything, I simply quoted what the Butler Report said.

4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooporate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.
...
9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorize force.

-- Butler Report, p182

According to the argument, there was no requirement for the inspectors to finish their job. It says force was justified "if Iraq failed at any time to comply with" 1441 and previous resolutions.

I respect that the inspectors wanted to finish their job; if they had, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. But, they were (literally) pushed around for the past 12 years, how could we believe they'd be able to finish in the next 12 years? They had been kicked out of the country for 3-4 years until we started threatening military action and adopted Resolution 1441. I believe it was time for the "serious consequences" we originally said they'd get.

Your mileage may vary.

WhiteBirch

 

[rmcrobertson]

"If they had, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in?"

Uh...and why was it that the UN inspectors did not get to finish the job, exactly?

 

[Flatlander]

It wasn't deemed illegal. One man voiced his opinion.

One man voiced his opinion? Don't you think that a very public statement by the Secretary General of the United Nations regarding the single biggest controversy of his term as such carries a little more weight than simply one man voicing his opinion? I don't think he's really in the position to just sort of open his mouth to see what comes out.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

I think that before the Security Council would have been able to move on this, a precise definition of "serious conseqences" would have been necessary. That was never achieved. End result? The actions undertaken were not a reflection of the will of the UN. Ergo, the UN is no longer capable of administering international law, as President Bush has seen no consequence for his breach of international law. His service men and women are paying for it though. What an honourable man.

 

[michaeledward]

Honestly, understanding all of the nuances of 'Diplo-Speak' that we encounter in a Security Council Resolution is perhaps a bit too much for me to claim understanding of, but I am going to try anyhow.

Resolution 1441 ... Clause 14 States :

Acting under Charter VII of the Charter of the United Nations . . . 14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Now .. what the heck does 'seized of the matter.' mean?

Apparently, 'seized of the matter' is Diplo-speak for 'We aren't through dealing with this yet'. Any diplomat reading that line, theoretically at least, would understand that the organization is going to come back and re-visit the results of the matter.

Now, President Bush & Prime Minister Blair made all sorts of noise about going back to the UN Security Council until they found out they weren't going to have the votes. I think we can draw a conclusion from the second wave of Security Council discussions about Resolution 1441; they understood what 'seized of the matter' meant.

There is perhaps more we could discuss concerning 1441, but really, I am not educated enough in the specifics of diplo-speak to really argue what it all means.

You know, such as clause 10. which asks all memeber states to give full support to UNMOVIC & IAEA .. you know, Gee, do you suppose the President of the United States telling UNMOVIC to get out of Iraq because the bombs are going to start falling qualifies as 'Full Support'.

It seems to me that if the Secretary General tells us that the Invasion was not in compliance with the United Nations Charter, perhaps we should consider him an expert in that area.

Mike

 

[lvwhitebir]

One man voiced his opinion? Don't you think that a very public statement by the Secretary General of the United Nations regarding the single biggest controversy of his term as such carries a little more weight than simply one man voicing his opinion? I don't think he's really in the position to just sort of open his mouth to see what comes out.

IMO, it's like a prosecuting attorney telling the bad guy he's guilty. That's not the case until proven in court and it's not the prosecuting attorney's job to declare guilt, it's to prove it. The defense attorney always has his day in court, too.

1) Mr. Annan was pressed into using the term, it wasn't his intention to do so.
2) He is due his opinion and it does carry more weight than the average Joe, simply due to his position.
3) He is not the judge in this case, only an opinionated bystander, so his opinion is nothing more than that.

I'm not here to plead the case, just to present the "defense's" argument as I found it. I'm not educated enough to determine if the argument is "legal" as far as the UN is concerned, but happen to agree with it. Obviously the coalition believed it to be a valid legal argument as well.

The legality of this will have to be decided by the World Court, if it ever sees cases such as this. IMO, this case will never get that far, but will remain in the court of public opinion.

WhiteBirch

 

[lvwhitebir]

I think that before the Security Council would have been able to move on this, a precise definition of "serious conseqences" would have been necessary.

Resolution 678 was a lot less vague in this area. It said military action could be used. As the argument goes, that's the resolution they were ultimately enforcing.

Ergo, the UN is no longer capable of administering international law, as President Bush has seen no consequence for his breach of international law.

He has yet seen no consequence. It's possible this will be brought to the World Court, although I don't know their jurisdiction. Until then, you are free to use your voting power.

WhiteBirch

 

[Flatlander]

Alas, as a Canadian, I may only stand by and watch the horror unfold.....

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, please. The Bush Admin basically ANNOUNCED that it was an illegal war, from the UN's point of view, when they announced that the inspectors had to leave because they were launching strikes without Security Council approval.

Yes, there was some fig leafing: Bush claimed authority under previous UN resolutions. Did anybody supporting the war actually buy that? Or was there a hooraw about how kewl it was that we were finally ginoring those bastards and doing what was best for America?

Wow, memory's gotten short. It was made very clear, at the time, that the war did NOT have UN approval.

 

[MisterMike]

I think Saddam announced he was game for a tangle with the US when he kept firing on our Air patrols in the no fly zones over the past 9 or 10 years. Ask, and ye shall receive.