Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:32
VIEWED: 15590
PAGE 1 of 15
The reason my country, Canada, and many others didn't join the 'Coalition of the Willing' is this - the Iraq Invasion is clearly illegal.
Impeach GWB! 
Iraq war illegal, says Annan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".
Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.
The UN chief said in an interview with the BBC World Service that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq.
"Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said.
'Valid'
"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," he added.
He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.
And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Mr Annan's comments provoked angry suggestions from a former Bush administration aide that they were timed to influence the US November election.
"I think it is outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the BBC.
"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference."
A UK foreign office spokeswoman said: "The Attorney-General made the government's position on the legal basis for the use of military force in Iraq clear at the time".
Australian Prime Minister John Howard also rejected Mr Annan's remarks, saying the legal advice he was given was "entirely valid".
The BBC's Susannah Price at UN headquarters in New York says Mr Annan has made similar comments before.
He has said from the beginning the invasion did not conform with the UN charter - phrasing that was seen as a diplomatic way of saying the war was illegal.
Our correspondent says Mr Annan's relationship with the US might be made a little uncomfortable for a while following his comments, but both sides are likely to want to play it down.
US President George W Bush is due to speak at the UN General Assembly next week.
Iraq elections
Mr Annan also said in the interview the UN would give advice and assistance in the run-up to the elections, but it was up to the Iraqi interim government to decide whether such a vote should go ahead.
He warned there could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now".
The UK foreign office spokeswoman said there was a full commitment to hold elections in January.
Election and political party laws had already been passed and an independent electoral commission established.
"The task is huge and the deadline tight, but the Iraqi people clearly want elections," she said.
On Wednesday, the head of the British army General Sir Mike Jackson said national elections in Iraq were still on track.
On Monday, Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said elections must go ahead as planned although he conceded the violence might stop some Iraqis voting.
However, a day later a car bomb close to an Iraqi police station in central Baghdad killed 47 people and gunmen opened fire on a police
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
However, a day later a car bomb close to an Iraqi police station in central Baghdad killed 47 people and gunmen opened fire on a police minibus in Baquba, killing 12.
Actually, I hear this was an Apache firing missels into someones house. This was followed by US troops shooting civilians in the area.
Of course, it's not the first time US troops have fired into a crowd in Bagdad. Rather like protesters in New York are jailed but never charged with anything. Wow, America really is becomming a typical fascist state. Sad.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, this is the reason that 1 million people protested in London.
Sure, a majority may have had ulterior motives, but this confirms what hundreds of thousands of people protested against.
___________________________________
Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think Annan's statement was designed to deflect attention from the UN's failure to do anything about the crisis in Sudan. 1.5 million are displaced, 50,000 are already dead, and international agencies estimate up to 10,000 additional are dying each month from disease, starvation and murder by the government's paramilitaries. The latest round of peace talks has just broken down due to the government's unwillingness to rein in the Janjaweed paramilitary force.
The latest draft proposal for sanctions against the Khartoum government can't even get out of the Security Council due to veto threats from China and Russia. They, along with Security Council members Pakistan, Algeria, and Angola have problems with the resolution's "...declaration of "grave concern" that the Sudanese government "has failed to comply fully" with its previous commitments to curb the militias and provide security for the civilians who fled; its call for an independent commission to investigate "whether or not acts of genocide have occurred;" and its call for a halt to all military flights over Darfur."
http://wtop.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=202174
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^ Agent Mulder? Is that you? *chuckle*, take your conspiracy theories to FOX pal.
The topic is that when GWB went to Congress and asked for the power to go to War the Congress said; "sure, but only if you prove there is a threat to the USA (finding the WMDs Bush promised existed) and Saddam is connected to 9/11".
Neither turned out to be true. The Cheney Gov... er, the Bush Government lied to the American people. Impeach him!
Now, the death toll in Iraq is growing faster and longer every day, more than a year after GWB declaired "Mission Accomplished". And still nearly half of Americans believe Saddam DID have something to do with 9/11. Impeach him!
Insane. Impeach him or else?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think you have it half right,
GWB's illegal use of the resolution against Iraq, may very well paralyze the security council... as how will the Americans take what we just said out of context and use to their own means.... again
I think the veto has to be taken out of the process, instead a majority rule vote carries and if a member state doesn't want to participate there you go. Pre Iraq the council then could have shot down GWBs claim he was enforcing a UN sanctioned action by condemning it beforehand. Perhaps a few more permenant members ie India, and more rotated members bring the number to 15 or so.
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think you have it half right,
GWB's illegal use of the resolution against Iraq, may very well paralyze the security council... as how will the Americans take what we just said out of context and use to their own means.... again
China is the major veto threat against any meaningful resolution. Guess which country is Sudan's major trading partner?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by Geezer:
China is the major veto threat against any meaningful resolution. Guess which country is Sudan's major trading partner?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
And the US is the only one who vetos resolutions against Israel... toss the veto
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
Sorry, big response for a big issue.
Wow. He opposed the war then and now. Big surprise. Dozens of nations disagreed. There has been no Security Council action to condemn the war.
Actually 3 resolutions authorized the use of force against Iraq. The first was prior to the 1991 Gulf War. That war lasted until a cease fire. The cease fire was violated in a number of ways by Iraq. These included the expulsion of inpsectors in 1998 (right around the time of Clinton's Lewinsky War which started with military strikes on Iraq the day the House voted to impeach Clinton, lasted a week or so...and nobody complains about that one), the failure to return or account for several thousand Kuwaiti prisoners (later found to have been tortured and killed in Iraqi prisons in the '90s) and the almost daily attacks on US and UK planes in the no fly zone.
The second was in the mid-nineties, but I can't remember when or why.
The last was the "accept UN demands or else" resolution before the Iraq war last year. Its the "or else" part that is in issue. "Or else" what? Annan says "or else means nothing else, France says it means something, but not war. The US says that it either means war "or else" the UN itself has no meaning (empty threats indicate a lack of power and resolve which reduces the UN to a debating society).
Now here's my two cents. This war was actually caused by weakness by the international community. France, Annan, and ten thousand protesters signaled a division in policy. Saddam then exercised his influence with France to seek support and undermine US efforts to build a solid coalition of the "power players" of Europe. He was successful. The US countered Saddam's efforts by courting 2nd tier European powers such as Poland and Romania. Then, using the sufficiently vague resolution (made of language insisted on by France), launched the war without seeking the support of France, Germany, or Russia. They succeeded and Saddam is now out of power.
So lets rewind to the Fall of '02. Bush goes to the UN and makes the big speech. France, Russia, and Germany, along with the lessor powers in Europe and around the world rally to the US with a post 9/11 spirit. Standing shoulder to shoulder the make the same demands and substitute "or there will be war" for the "or else" that China would prefer. The vote is 14-0-1 with China abstaining. France sends a light armor brigade to Kuwait along with the US, UK, Polish, Bugarians, Romanians, and Spain. They spread out through Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which happily extends its full support. They also stage troops in Turkey, which proudly joins honors what it sees as its NATO commitments.
Which scenario is more likely to lead to war? An international community divided in its commitment and strategy to oppose terror, or one united against terror and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Further, I doubt Iran and North Korea feel so comfortable with their own programs in the wake of such a united stand.
There. That should end debate except for the Bush-haters for whom hating Bush is more important then a realist approach to international relations and domestic security.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
