The UN, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

[I miss Reagan]

Opponents of the war in Iraq have used many choice words to describe the U.S.-led military action there.

Few have merit, but do any make less sense than “illegal”? Yet that is what United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan (search) called the war in an interview with the BBC, (search) adding that “I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time.”

U.S. allies who had supported the liberation of Baghdad, including Britain, Australia, Poland, Bulgaria and Japan, immediately condemned his remarks — and rightly so. It was only the latest in a long line of blunders by Annan, whose leadership on the world stage, from Rwanda (search) to Iraq to the Sudan (search), has proven a spectacular failure.

But, some may ask, can’t Annan express his opinion? Yes, but his ill-considered jibe carries serious repercussions. It undercuts efforts to stabilize postwar Iraq efforts that have been endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. It stigmatizes the embryonic Iraqi government and strengthens the hand of Iraqi insurgents (search) and foreign terrorists determined to strangle democracy and defeat the U.S.-led, U.N.-backed security operation.

Why would Annan want to undermine the U.N.’s own efforts in Iraq at a time when the world body faces mounting criticism for failing to respond effectively to international crises?

Annan’s statement that the war was “illegal” is both false and spurious. By Annan’s logic, the 1999 U.S./British-led intervention in Kosovo (search), which was conducted without benefit of a Security Council resolution (search), also was “illegal” despite the fact that the international community supported it.

It’s true that Washington failed to convince Paris and Moscow to vote for a final Security Council resolution that explicitly endorsed the use of force if Iraq’s dictatorship continued to renege on its legal commitments to disarm. But the Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1441 in November 2002, which threatened “serious consequences” if Iraq failed to do so. And Iraq already had defied 16 other Security Council resolutions on disarmament, human rights abuses and support for terrorism.

Kofi Annan's Iraq Blunder

Edited October 12, 2004 by I miss Reagan

[Black Dog]

You don't have to post the full article (its a copyright violation): a link and some snippets would suffice.

Now, to the article:

Yes, but his ill-considered jibe carries serious repercussions. It undercuts efforts to stabilize postwar Iraq efforts that have been endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. It stigmatizes the embryonic Iraqi government and strengthens the hand of Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists determined to strangle democracy and defeat the U.S.-led, U.N.-backed security operation.

So, it's far better to remain silent rather than criticize bad policy? Give me a break.

But the Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1441 in November 2002, which threatened “serious consequences” if Iraq failed to do so.

Interesting how they can simultaneously deride the UN, yet tout the dubious 1441 as the organization's stamp of legitmacy on the Anglo-American invasion.

Moreover, Iraq technically put itself into a state of war with the United States by violating the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War. Long before the 2003 war, Iraqi forces were shooting daily at American and British warplanes assigned to enforce the U.N.-imposed “no-fly zones” over Iraq.

The first clear factual error: the U.N did not endorse the no-fly zones: they were imposed by the US, Britain and France after Gulf War 1.

The Clinton administration chose to ignore these attacks and other cease-fire violations, but the Bush administration decided to take action in view of Iraq’s manifest failure to prove that it had dismantled its prohibited programs to build weapons of mass destruction and missiles that threatened its neighbors. The U.N. Charter explicitly recognizes the right of every state to act in self-defense, a fact that Annan curiously neglects.

But Iraq never attacked the U.S, therefore the invasion could not be ruled as an act of self-defense, could it? There's no clause for "preemptive war" in the UN CHarter.

The U.N. Secretary-General’s gratuitous comments were an extraordinarily undiplomatic and inappropriate intervention from a world figure who is supposed to be a neutral servant of the international community. They raise serious questions regarding Annan’s judgment and his suitability to continue in his post.

Annan's job is to represent the UN, not kowtow to the U.S. president. In that capacity, his comment was entirely appropriate.

Fie on Fox News.

[I miss Reagan]

You don't have to post the full article (its a copyright violation): a link and some snippets would suffice.

It's not the full article, so sorry not a copyright violation.

[I miss Reagan]

Annan's job is to represent the UN, not kowtow to the U.S. president. In that capacity, his comment was entirely appropriate.

Well BR the article discusses Kofi being divisive and inconsistent. I think it did a good job at proving Kofi as a polarizing leader. Unfortunately we rarely hear this side of the debate as Kofi is a liberal media darling.

[Black Dog]

It's not the full article, so sorry not a copyright violation.

Only beacause you edited the last two paragraphs out after the fact, sneaky boy.

Well BR the article discusses Kofi being divisive and inconsistent. I think it did a good job at proving Kofi as a polarizing leader. Unfortunately we rarely hear this side of the debate as Kofi is a liberal media darling

Well, when the article contains glaring factual errors (the no-fly zone reference) and oversimplifications (such as the false invocation of Article 51), it doesn't do it's job well. Why, would would almost believe that they were pushing a partisan political stance....

[Black Dog]

More on the "ineffective UN" and the recent report of the Iraq Survey Group.

Regime change was the aim

Bush and Blair have argued that because the Iraqi government had failed to comply with previous security council resolutions regarding Iraq's obligation to disarm, the right of enforcing these resolutions is implicit.

Duelfer's report slams the door on that line of thinking, since it is now clear that Iraq had in fact disarmed in compliance with security council resolutions. One of the tragic ironies of the decision to invade Iraq is that the Iraqi WMD declaration required by security council resolution 1441, submitted by Iraq in December 2002, and summarily rejected by Bush and Blair as repackaged falsehoods, now stands as the most accurate compilation of data yet assembled regarding Iraq's WMD programmes (more so than even Duelfer's ISG report, which contains much unsubstantiated speculation). Saddam Hussein has yet to be contradicted on a single point of substantive fact. Iraq had disarmed; no one wanted to accept that conclusion.

Charles Duelfer has to date provided no documentation to back up his assertion regarding Saddam's "intent". Nor has he produced any confession from Saddam Hussein or any senior Iraqi official regarding the same. What has been offered is a compilation of hearsay and conjecture linked to unnamed sources whose identities remain shrouded in secrecy.

[Guest eureka]

How can it be argued that the invasion of Iraq was legal given everything that is now known. A pre-emptive attack on another country is, by definition, illegal. Only when it is a clearly self-defensive action can any case be made. That, under International Law would still be illegal where no actual threat had been made.

It might have been legal for Iraq to attack America given the threats: that is arguable as the UN had not taken its final position.

Kosovo was also an illegal invasion. I had started this question on another thread that, unfortunately, lapsed without discussion of this.

The difference in the case of Kosovo was that ot was NATO that acted and not a unilateral action of any state.

What does that imply. It is a changed view of international law and relations. Given the more dangerous nature of the international jungle now, should it be permissible for bodies such as NATO to act in a matter that did not directly affect the member nations/

How are we to approach genocidal situations in the future. The United Nations will often be stymied by the vetoes of nations whose interest might be to support the genocidal regime - American and the Taliban before Bin Laden: or Korea and Vietnam.

Russia and several governments. Many others could be points.

How do we change or adapt International Law to deal with modern threats?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

How do we change or adapt International Law to deal with modern threats?

The 64 billion dollar question. The UN must be able to wield the military might of it's members, or have a standing (and very costly) Army of it's own. It's not the law that is wrong, it is the impotence of the UN to implement resolutions that is the biggest problem. More things would 'come to the table' if the UN actually had the power to enforce resolutions. Israel, USA, Russia, China (though not a member) etc would 'play the ball' entirely differently.

As to the Fox "News" article 'I miss reagan' posted, no wonder the CRTC doesn't want it in Canada. It is 'false advertising' calling what they print 'news'.

[August1991]

The 64 billion dollar question. The UN must be able to wield the military might of it's members, or have a standing (and very costly) Army of it's own.

What a thought!

I think the UN managed the elections in Afghanistan - and one would think the UN would at least be competent in matters of ink.

[Big Blue Machine]

Can't NATO just by-pass the UN and go into a country on its own?

[Newfie Canadian]

If memory serves, that's what happened in Bosnia.

Clinton couldn't or didn't get support from the UN so NATO went in.

Bosnia and area is a NATO operation, SFOR.

[Big Blue Machine]

I heard NATO was created because they didn't trust the UN on military issues.

[Newfie Canadian]

Well, NATO was created as a defensive alliance against the threat posed by communism in the form of the USSR and its satelites.

Think about it for a second. The UN wouldn't be of any use in regards to military action because the security council is made up of vetoes from both sides of a potential conflict. NATO gave the western powers the option of forgoing the UN in military matters.

Plus, it made sense to have a western alliance to oppose the eastern block.

[kimmy]

Do shoddy 3rd-world regimes have an undue amount of influence in the UN through sheer force of numbers? We know that there are many national governments that couldn't run a hot-dog stand without resulting in corruption and human rights violations. When the UN gets together to vote on an issue, do these banana republics have just as much say as civilized nations? And if so, does that seem right to you guys?

-kimmy

[Argus]

Do shoddy 3rd-world regimes have an undue amount of influence in the UN through sheer force of numbers? We know that there are many national governments that couldn't run a hot-dog stand without resulting in corruption and human rights violations. When the UN gets together to vote on an issue, do these banana republics have just as much say as civilized nations? And if so, does that seem right to you guys?

-kimmy

Yes. Every little tinpot dictatorship with half a million people has one vote, the same as Canada, the same as the US. That is why they had the foresight, when putting together the UN, to require any actual actions be approved by the Security Council, where the US, France, UK and Soviets, the original founders, all had vetoes.

The thought of removing veto rights and letting the UN do anything it wants is truly friightening. I might be in favour of one world government one day, but this is not the day and these are not the people to be running it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

I might be in favour of one world government one day, but this is not the day and these are not the people to be running it.

Well said, and I must agree. I believe in the spirit of what the UN stands for, but it's current set up is near farcical. What can be done though, or what would be the optimum structure? Having the majority will of the citizens represent the vote cast on behalf of the nation on resolutions? Or have the UN run by people who must renounce citizenship and live with no country to call their own, or represent?

[Argus]

Well said, and I must agree. I believe in the spirit of what the UN stands for, but it's current set up is near farcical. What can be done though, or what would be the optimum structure? Having the majority will of the citizens represent the vote cast on behalf of the nation on resolutions? Or have the UN run by people who must renounce citizenship and live with no country to call their own, or represent?

Frankly, the world is not ready for one government at this time, even if the representation at the UN actually did mirror that of its member nations. There is far too great a gap between the level of education and sophistication of the people in "first world" nations and that of the people in "third world" nations. That might sound arrogant, but recall that they are still burning wiches in Africa, still cutting off little girls clitoris' in the Muslim world, and "bride stealing" is becoming more common in China with the growing shortage of women.

Let's take a hypothetical example. Suppose there was a world vote about whether homosexuals should be killed, imprisoned, or given equal rights. What do you think the result would be? There are a billion third world muslims out there, and affection for gays in Christian Africa and Asia is scarcely greater than in the Muslim world. I believe that homosexuality would quickly be made illegal if such a vote were held today.

Suppose there was a vote on redistributing populations. A billion Indians and a billion Chinese and the crowded masses in places like Indonesia and Nigeria would certainly want to see the free movement of people into North America and Europe, not to mention a redistribution of wealth.

Frankly, while I can see the education level rising in the third world, and while I can see the possibility of economic improvement easing the very human desire among those in third world nations to live here I don't see a cultural melding for centuries. Individual nations will have to retain most of the rights to running their own affairs and writing their own laws long into the future. The best we can hope for from the UN in our lifetime is trying to mediate disagreements between nations.

Now the idea of having a world government run by people who have renounced their citizenship is attractive, but it's also utopian and unrealistic. People are the product of the cultures and societies in which they are raised. An observant Muslim raised in Saudi Arabia or Iran is not going to change his cultural outlook on life because he becomes a member of the UN world government. So unless you can figure a way to ensure the members of this government are guaranteed to be enlightened, honest, compassionate and intelligent, I'd be very wary of putting real power in their hands.

You might point out we don't have such people running our own government now. And you'd be right. But at least the majority of them grew up in a culture in which compromise and freedom and differences are respected and individual rights protected. And as dumb as the electorate can be I can usually rely on them to reign in at least the worst impulses of the idiots in government.

[August1991]

I believe in the spirit of what the UN stands for, but it's current set up is near farcical. What can be done though, or what would be the optimum structure?

Good question, Thelonious. I don't know. How best to express my desires as one person among 6 billion?

First of all, small countries seem to be more successful than big countries. (The US seems to be an exception but I happen to believe the US is decentralized. Its success stems from its local nature.)

So, however a world government is structured, it must be federal.

Second, what matters should go to the "central" government and how should they be decided? The writers of the US Constitution were extremely cautious. The US Articles of Confederation might be a model.

[barbarosa]

i thik the un should be dibanded its a joke realy america uses it wen it pleases but only for its own wellfare

america makes the world look stupid ,every one just sitting ther while america makes its own political agenda and runs the other countries like a babysitter

ive said this before but the UN has lost its job the UN was a sad attempt to recreate americas glory days

in case you havnt noticed this forum is for world politics if america is your only topic, then its sad to say,but thats not sayin alot for the other countries

[barbarosa]

you guys can stay in political la-la land but another UN type world structure isnt gonna happen unless some other countries take the initiative

[barbarosa]

but frankly i dont think any other country (other than americas freeloaders) cares

[CdnRepublican]

The UNO stood idly by in Central africa; Bosnia; Iraq in the 1990s while millions in sum perished. It is increasingly clear that Anan's and the UNOs objection to the 2nd Gulf War has to do with money and with French-Russian-Chinese interests. One should also add that the UNO feted Arafat and other terrorists as 'freedom fighters' and legitimised terror through direct funding of Arafat and Palestinian refugee camps.

It is a remarkably immoral organisation.

Two U.S. senators investigating the U.N. Oil-for-Food (search) program have told U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a letter that they were "troubled" by his decision to withhold documents or witness testimony from lawmakers.

Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Carl Levin of Michigan sent a letter to Annan Tuesday in which they blasted Annan for "affirmatively preventing" their congressional panel from getting requested information.

"They are not providing access to U.N. personnel, not providing access to U.N. internal audits," Coleman told FOX News........................

Both Annan and his son's company, Swiss-based Cotecna Inspection SA, have denied any wrongdoing, but Annan has also not yet made available audits that could detail who exactly was getting money. The Oil-for-Food program was started in late 1996 as a way to let Iraq sell some oil to allow humanitarian goods reach Iraqis but investigators now believe the program was a multi-billion dollar corruption scheme.

Asked about the senators’ letter, Annan’s communications director said he would look into the claims that his boss is not cooperating. The spokesman said the situation was "very awkward" and he called the senators’ communication "a troubling letter."

Big surprise that the UNO does not want the $50 billion Oil for Food Scam investigated. Anan is a mediocrity - anyone who said Hussein 'was a man i can do business with' should be tossed into a prison cell somewhere.

[JWayne625]

Why would Annan want to undermine the U.N.’s own efforts in Iraq at a time when the world body faces mounting criticism for failing to respond effectively to international crises?

How about because he's an idiot, who somehow sees himself as a World Leader. The truth be known he is anything but a World Leader. He's like that cartoon figure who keeps drawing the line in the sand, and playing that stupid game of," If you cross this line, you'll be sorry," but then they cross the line and the line simply get's moved, and the same phrase is repeated. He has no credibliity whatsoever.

France criticized the U.S. and Britain for invading Iraq, and where are French troops now? Invading the Gold Coast. The French are a bunch of gutless wonders. They simply stood aside during the war and allowed Germany to march in virtually without firing a shot. If it wern't for British, Canadian, and U.S. troops they would now be goose-stepping and flying a swaztika instead of the Fleur-de-leis. France, Russia and Germany are mad at Britain and the USA because they were getting rich off circumventing the sanctions imposed by the UN, by making little side deals for oil.

[caesar]

I think it is really ludicrous; how the USA likes to criticize the UN on one hand then ask for help when they get in over their heads. The problem with the UN is caused by the USA and its failure to pay its dues on time and it politically motivated vetoes. The other 4 holders of a veto likewise often abuse their veto, too.

Representtives to the UN should be able to think and operate on an international basis and leave the political games at home. Much like our Supreme court can rule on the legality of our governments action or decisions.

No country should have a effective single veto and none of the member holding vetoes should be permanent. The world powers change with countries rising and falling in importance and influence; the UN veto holding countries should reflect this wane and flow of countries. A system using the number of people it represents and the amount of money it contributes to world affairs at the UN should be used to award a veto. Such veto voting countries should be done on a majority or set percentage such as 66% to enable an intervention. Yes, the UN need to have the ability to collect the monies due to enable it to effectively do its job. Taxes on all munitions and weapons could be an idea. It should have a military force of its own of personell from its member countries

[Boondoggle]

The other 4 holders of a veto likewise often abuse their veto, too.

USSR/Russia: 120 vetoes. Only two vetoes since the collapse of the Soviet Union

US: 77 vetoes. Blocked 36 resolutions criticising Israel.

UK: 32 vetoes, 23 times with the US. All solo UK vetoes on Zimbabwe

France: 18 vetoes, 13 with the US and UK

China: 5 vetoes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm

If you remove vetoes that were used in support of the US, the record would be:

2 for Russia (since the Soviet Union)

9 for the UK

5 for France

5 for China

77 for the US with 36 blocking resolutions related to Israel

The US isn't in much of a position to talk about other countries blocking resolutions.

Right-wingers always like to play the oil-for-food card when the UN is mentioned. Since it was mentioned, let's take a closer look:

Scandals of Oil for Food

Humanitarian Emergency

The raft of investigations has been accompanied by a loud campaign, led by William Safire and other conservative columnists, to discredit the Oil for Food program in public opinion. Claudia Rosett, one of the most vitriolic critics, wrote in the April 28 Wall Street Journal, "It's looking more and more as if one of the best reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein was that it was probably the only way to get rid of Oil for Food." How seriously should these sensational accusations be taken?

When the program was formally terminated in November 2003, $31 billion of humanitarian aid had been delivered, primarily food and medicine, but also items for water and sewage treatment, electricity production, transportation and agriculture. Within the narrow strictures of the sanctions regime, the Oil for Food program accomplished a great deal, according to statistics kept by these agencies and independent observers. Between 1997 and 2002, the nutritional value of the food basket distributed monthly by the program almost doubled, from 1,200 calories per person per day to about 2,200. The incidence of communicable diseases, including cholera and malaria, was cut down substantially. Electricity became more reliable, as did the availability of potable water. Despite these gains, sanctions continued to take a toll.

In the late 1990s and the early days of the current Bush administration, most of the debate over Oil for Food focused on its limitations as a remedy for Iraq's humanitarian crisis. Today's spotlight on alleged corruption in the program, in addition to being tinged with reflexive right-wing hostility to the UN, reveals the collective amnesia about the effects of the economic sanctions that made Oil for Food necessary in the first place.

Smuggling

Yet it is somewhat misleading to portray smuggling as a failure on the part of the UN. In 1990, Security Council Resolution 665 invited member states to interdict the suspected smuggling with their own military forces, leading to the establishment of the Multinational Interception Force patrolling the Persian Gulf. The US Navy provides most of the ships for the force, which has operated under the command of a series of American rear admirals and vice admirals from the Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain. None of the members of the Security Council ever intervened to block the well-known smuggling route passing through parts of northern Iraq controlled by US-allied Kurdish militias into Turkey. The US also filed no objection to the oil trade between Iraq and Jordan that took place throughout the history of the sanctions.

Kickbacks

On more than 70 occasions when there were obvious price discrepancies, the Office of the Iraq Program did bring them to the attention of the so-called 661 Committee -- composed of all 15 Security Council members -- which reviewed all proposed Oil for Food contracts. In testimony submitted to Congress on April 28, John Ruggie, the assistant secretary-general charged with relations with the US mission, recalled that the committee "approved roughly 36,000 contracts over the life span of the program. Every member had the right to hold up contracts if they detected irregularities, and the US and Britain were by far the most vigilant among them. Yet, as best as I can determine, of those 36,000 contracts not one -- not a single solitary one -- was ever held up by any member on the grounds of pricing."

Mass Distraction

While Oil for Food funds may have improperly ended up in the hands of Saddam Hussein's government, the fundamental responsibility for the humanitarian crisis was the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq by the Security Council, and then enforced in an extraordinarily harsh way at the insistence of the US and Britain. Under the sanctions, Iraq's annual gross domestic product dropped from about $60 billion to about $13 billion, according to a joint Food and Agriculture Organization and World Food Program estimate released in 1997. Assume that all the accusations of corruption are true, and the government of Saddam Hussein did indeed salt away $11 billion over the six years in which Oil for Food was in effect. Even if those funds had purchased humanitarian goods, the Iraqi GDP would have risen to $15 billion annually -- not an amount that could have compensated for the loss of 75 percent of the economy or rebuilt the dilapidated infrastructure.

Full article here.

Expansion of Probe into Iraq's Oil-for-Food Program Includes CPA

A House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday broadened its investigation of Iraq's oil-for-food program to include the Bush administration's handling of the country's oil money. The decision to subpoena documents from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York marks a major shift in the Government Reform subcommittee's investigation, which until this point had focused on corruption in the United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq during Saddam's regime.

The decision means the subcommittee also will scrutinize the activities of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004. A recent internal audit of the CPA by its inspector general concluded that the authority couldn't account for $8.8 billion in oil revenues that belonged to the Iraqi people.

Full article here.

US Report of Iraq Payoffs Miffs France

The US' handling this week of a report on Saddam Hussein's attempts to purchase weapons and buy influence has angered French officials and set back a year of US efforts to repair the rupture caused by the Iraq war, French and other European officials said on Friday. The anger of France and others is focused on the assertions in the report by Charles Duelfer, the top US arms inspector in Iraq, that French companies and individuals, some with close ties to the government, enriched themselves through Iraq's huge payments to gain influence around the world in the years before the war.

Administration spokesmen said that there was no intent in releasing the report to endorse its findings or blame France or any other country for corruption, or to link any alleged corruption to that country's subsequent opposition to the war in Iraq. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney and others in the administration are citing the Duelfer report as evidence that Saddam had sought to corrupt foreign countries in order to have sanctions on Iraq lifted. Although Cheney did not say so directly, French officials say it was obvious that he was referring to France and other countries that had opposed the war.

French officials say that the report's charges, based on documents and interviews in Iraq, have been denied in the past, but that Duelfer's report did not contain the denials. They also complain that France was not given more than one day's notice before the report was issued. They were incensed that the report also mentioned Americans in connection with similar charges, but that unlike the French they were not identified because of US privacy regulations. "You protect American citizens, but you put in danger a number of private citizens in other countries who may be innocent people," said Jean-David Levitte, the French ambassador to the US. "These names are from an old list, published months ago, and those mentioned denied it flatly."

Full article here.

Annan seeks independent oil-for-food probe

"I think we will need to have an independent investigation, an investigation that can be as broad as possible to look into all these allegations which are being made and get to the bottom of this," Annan said earlier Friday, prior to sending the letter.

Questions swirled around the role of Kojo Annan, the secretary-general's son, in the Swiss company Cotecna, which was hired to inspect food and supplies going to Iraq under the program.

A senior U.N. official discounted the insinuations Thursday, saying the younger Annan resigned from Cotecna before the company won the bid to aid the oil-for-food program.

Full article here.