Anan, Iraqi Invasion "illegal"

Well, check out these choice quotes from Kofi Anan about our Iraq Invasion Follies:

"I am one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution from the UN Security Council to green-light the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime," Annan said.

....

"I have indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, and from the charter point of view it was illegal," he said.

....

"It was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be," he said.

He added that the US decision to go ahead and invade Iraq, with British forces at its side, "was not in conformity with the Security Council, with the UN charter".

Asked if he meant that the decision to invade was illegal, Annan replied: "Yes, if you wish."

Of course, anyone who knows how the Security Council works was saying this 20 months ago but that's beside the point. As a country, we've gone around the UN for decades now when acting in our "national security" interests (as well as other countries). So, what does this mean for the future of the UN?

Should it be disbanded? Is it completely toothless?

It's not hard to see how the US will face no repurcussions from this statement by Anan- except maybe the Democratic Party will fire a couple broadsides at Bush, even though many in the Party voted to give Bush authority.

•  Forgot..

  To include a link. From the lovable, cuddly Al Jazeera:

  http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2AA1310F-798C-4666-AE76-DCB6370C75CC.htm

  by Demise on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 05:25:08 AM PDT

•  95% of world's people knew this

  But it's always nice to have a confirmation from insiders. Though I don't think UN is that more useless now than 50 years ago. The League of Nations was far more useless, then when WWII was won the winners decided a more effective organisation was needed, one wielding more power and influence over the members. Looks like the UN constraints aren't enough, so one can hope that 10 years from now we'll have a newer version, more effective, less submissive to the whims of major powers.
  

  by Clueless Joe on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 05:35:16 AM PDT

  •  Don't be stupid

    There is a reason it is called the United Nations... hence it is made up of nations. If all the countries are going to cower to the US there is not a damn thing the US can do ... especially since the US provides close to 50% of its annual budget. Instead of tearing down the UN it is more important to understand why Annan is saying this now and what are the implications. I can guess two: * That the UK is departing from the coaliton of idiots and will provide Annan cover for these pretty damning statements. Blair has to do something big in order to save his ass and the entire Labour Party * Or that the UN is FUBAR and Annan is stating the truths in the last thoes of life.

    by Genf on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 05:49:06 AM PDT

    •  Give up the Dean ghost,

      or continue to live in the past grinding your resentful teeth.

      Kerry won, Dean lost.  Accept it and move on.
      

      by jnagarya2 on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 06:07:38 AM PDT

      •  who are you talking to?

        you comment has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

        by Genf on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 06:14:22 AM PDT

        •  It is responsive to your tagline.

          If you think Dean has a future as a presidential candidate, I'll have to try to locate some means by which to introduce you to reality.

          Your clinging to Dean will doubtless continue for the next four years, exactly as the clinging to Nader continued through the last four.
          

          by jnagarya2 on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 06:19:05 AM PDT

      •  Err..

        Kinda off topic.

        by Demise on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 07:17:44 AM PDT

•  BBC interviewed Annan

  BBC World News ran an interview with Annan this morning.  Annan told the BBC the decision to take action in Iraq contravened the UN charter and should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

  As part of that report, Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to Rumsfeld, accused Annan of trying to influence the outcome of the forthcoming US presidential election. He said that it was outrageous for Annan to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states.

  "To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference," Scheunemann said.

  I think this is pretty sweet.  Foreign leaders seem to prefer a Kerry win rather than see Bush re-selected and Annan's statement lends credence to that.

  Here are some excerpts of Annan's interview with the BBC.
  

  by mini mum on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 06:00:57 AM PDT

  •  It's being rebroadcast at the moment (for

    the 15th time).

    Bushit notwithstanding, the UN SC itself voted against his illegal invasion of Iraq, so all Annan is doing is stating the fact: the UN SC, having voted against it, the invasion was illegal.  Based upon that fact, the occupation and everything related thereto is illegal.

    And note that I stated that fact without any mention of the Abu Ghraib cesspool under the Bushit War Crimes Family?

    Now we're getting additional comments -- Australia's Howard defends it on the ground that some Australian lawyer said otherwise, therefore it was legal for UN member Australia to ignore the UN's superior vote for some unadmitted "reason" of convenience for Australia.

    Howard's view is not only in keeping with that of the statistically insignificant minority -- Bushit, Blair, Howard, Berlusconii -- but it also means he'll be looking up at the smackdown hammered onto him by the Australian electorate.
    

    by jnagarya2 on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 06:15:33 AM PDT

    •  Australia

      Howard is facing his own reelection battle so of course he's going to come out and give a "reason of convenience" as you call it.

      Seems to me that Bush's presidency of excuses is setting a global trend...

      by mini mum on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 07:47:38 AM PDT

•  Coalition Of The Weenies

  "Key allies in the US-led war in Iraq reject UN chief Kofi Annan's assertion that the invasion was illegal. "

  The "coalition" members are lying. You can see the specific provisions of the charter that are being violated here.

  by Mizez Slocombe on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 06:21:05 AM PDT

  •  Costa Rica, though it took awhile,

    stopped lying when it decided it should comply with its constitution.

    I hope they have nukes to deter Bushit's infantile rage.
    

    by jnagarya2 on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 06:34:19 AM PDT

    •  If Only...

      The US paid attention to it's own Constitution which states treaties entered into will be the law of the land.

      Unfortunately, this has occurred before.

      by Demise on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 07:19:29 AM PDT

•  BBC News

  The British admit to collaborating 'at the highest levels' in torture at Abu Ghraib.

  British Defence Minister admits that high-ranking British officers worked in close contact with US jailers in Abu Ghraib.

  by paper tigress on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 07:49:25 AM PDT

•  UN toothless

  Bush has proven that the UN cannot do anything to stop the US superpower from running amok should it wish.  It is one thing to declare an illegality, it is another to call someone to the mat for it, and clearly Anan cannot.

  Sure, the invasion was illegal and against resolution and charter and all that, but Anan's statements have as little heft as if I said them myself.

  Wait - I did.

  by lennywick on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 09:21:31 AM PDT