Posted on 09/16/2004 8:34:15 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
LONDON (AP) U.S. allies Britain and Australia on Thursday rejected a claim by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the war in Iraq was ''illegal'' because Washington and its coalition partners never got Security Council backing for the invasion.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman reminded reporters that Britain's attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, had found before the war that Britain was acting legally, citing three U.N. resolutions he said justified the use of force against the Saddam Hussein regime.
Britain was a leading supporter of the U.S.-led March 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam, which followed months of bitter debate in the 15-nation Security Council.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard a staunch U.S. supporter who defied widespread public anger to participate in the invasion also dismissed claims that the military action violated international law.
''There had been a series of Security Council resolutions and the advice we had (was) that it was entirely legal,'' Howard told Perth radio station 6PR.
Annan told British Broadcasting Corp. radio on Wednesday that the U.S.-led invasion did not conform to the United Nations charter.
The charter allows nations to take military action with Security Council approval, such as during the Korean War and the 1991 Gulf War.
But in 2003, 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 U.N. approval and much broader support from the international community,'' Annan told the BBC.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The United States is taking the lead in pushing the United Nations Security Council to take action. After all, this country has ratified the 1948 Genocide Convention and is bound by this treaty to “prevent genocide”. Congress has already labelled the attacks in Darfur as genocide; and now U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has made the same designation. But American proposals in the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions against Sudan have encountered opposition, notably from China and France. Both of these countries have an interest in maintaining their economic ties with Sudan and access to its oil.
In 1994 French President, Francois Mitterand, said “In such countries as this, genocide is not too important.” He was referring to Rwanda where in only 100 days in 1994 some 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu, encouraged by the Hutu government in Rwanda. Unfortunately, the position of the US administration at that time was that no genocide was taking place in Rwanda and therefore there was no reason to act. Later, when the full extent of the genocide was apparent to the rest of the world, President Clinton apologized to the Rwandan people, saying “All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror…We didn’t do anything to stop the genocide, but we didn’t know a horrific nightmare was happening.”
And UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who at the time of the genocide was in charge of UN peace-keeping, said that “Rwanda’s tragedy was the world’s tragedy. All of us who cared about Rwanda, all of us who witnessed its suffering, fervently wish that we could have prevented the genocide. Looking back now, we see the signs which then were not recognized. Now we know that what we did was not nearly enough – not enough to save Rwanda from itself, not enough to honor the ideals for which the United Nations exists. We will not deny that, in their greatest hour of need, the world failed the people of Rwanda ...” ***
Oil for food scandal: what did "Kofi" know and when did he know it? And where are his anonymous bank accounts?
Inquiring minds want to know.
"U.N.," who?
"U.N.," who?
This has gone on long enough.
If Pres. Bush was a total dweeb and supported ONLY the idea of getting us out of the UN, I'd vote for him just for that.
Too bad NO ONE is saying this in the political world.
A huge piece of the electorate hates the UN.
Get out of it. Then create a new international body based on heads of states meeting with one another.
Bush did tell them they were becoming obsolete.
I'd prefer "became obsolete two decades ago" but "becoming obsolete" is better than nothing.
:>)
Yep. We must be getting close to what Kofi knew, and when Kofi knew it....
Wait a minute Kofi!!
Does this mean that Clinton's invasion into Kosovo was illegal too?
After all. There was NO U.N. resolution authorizing it.
Or doesn't that count?
It is past time that the United States got out of the U.N.
If John Kerry is elected President, [I hope and pray that he isn't but there are enoung idiots, with the help of voter fraud, to elect him]expect to be under U.N. control within 6 months of him being sworn. Alought it is beyond my power of comprehension as to why an oath needs to be administered to a Democrat.
Didn't the UN ask the US for a $2 billion or so "loan" to rebuild their HQ in NYC?...well, after the election, I thinkt he UN can go "whistle" for its regular appropriation..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.