Kofi Annan: Declaration of Independence 'Illegal'

[A18]

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a BBC interview that the Bush Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq was "illegal'' because it didn't have U.N. Security Council approval.

At the time, Annan had underlined the lack of legitimacy for a war without U.N. 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 for the war meant it was illegal, he said: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view it was illegal.''

------

I seriously think we should leave the UN, and this makes the case better than anything else. This moron is actually telling us we're not a sovereign country!

How does this failed world forum help us in any way? Has it ever done anything right?

Best way to cut the deficit: quit picking up the UN's bills.

[MODU]

Kofi is looking at this just as the return to Iraq.  We have been at war with Iraq since 1991 when they violated the terms of the cease fire.  Otherwise, we've been in "violation" for 13 years now.  I think I understand the point that Kofi is making (doesn't want this to be a precedent for future actions), but he is off the mark on this one.  

[Giant Saguaro]

He would like to have some say, but he does not, that's what bothers me and this is why I have said for some time now (at least several years) that I support an immediate withdraw from the UN. If I were elected President, I would start working on this or exploring how to try to do it my first morning on the job. It's about a bureaucracy's interests and European interests a close second, not world interests and least of all US interests.

[stry_cat]

He would like to have some say, but he does not, that's what bothers me and this is why I have said for some time now (at least several years) that I support an immediate withdraw from the UN. If I were elected President, I would start working on this or exploring how to try to do it my first morning on the job. It's about a bureaucracy's interests and European interests a close second, not world interests and least of all US interests.

I agree, the UN Needs to be abolished.  Since the US has veto power on the security council they should just veto everything until the UN becomes so meaningless that everyone can see it.

[Giant Saguaro]

He would like to have some say, but he does not, that's what bothers me and this is why I have said for some time now (at least several years) that I support an immediate withdraw from the UN. If I were elected President, I would start working on this or exploring how to try to do it my first morning on the job. It's about a bureaucracy's interests and European interests a close second, not world interests and least of all US interests.

I agree, the UN Needs to be abolished.  Since the US has veto power on the security council they should just veto everything until the UN becomes so meaningless that everyone can see it.

Yep.

Also, When unable to construct a good argument for the usefullness of the UN, a lot of people will turn around and say, "Oh, but they're our allies and have been our allies for years and years and years and we need to be patient and diplomacy isn't easy and..." I don't know if that's the case since it seems to me that alliances are formed ad hoc now anyway. We're all nice and chummy, for example, when they need a Milosivic disposed of, but after we take care of something like that we're back to being a greedy capitalist Empire (when we were actually still a greedy capitalist Empire, but you know). And high ranking officials make comments like the above.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The title of this thread is misleading and it upset me when I first glanced at it  


Didn't the US Senate ratify the UN Charter?  If so, aren't we obligated to abide by the treaties we sign?

[A18]

I'm obligated by the treaties I signed with Logic and Reason to not give a damn what a 60-year old agreement says about a 60-year old time. Otherwise they'll retaliate and make a fool out of me.

[Giant Saguaro]

The title of this thread is misleading and it upset me when I first glanced at it  


Didn't the US Senate ratify the UN Charter?  If so, aren't we obligated to abide by the treaties we sign?

Until the treaties become irrelevant or outdated, of course. Or, as in this case, until they become restrictive.

What we should never be obligated to do, whether someone wants to twist the language of a treaty around to make it so or not, is seek approval for defense.

In a round-about way, the title of the thread has some measure of validity. The documents on which our government is based are meaningless if we must seek a permission stamp of approval to defend ourselves.

If the UN wants to work with us, fine, I'm all for working with them. But that's not the case and hasn't been for some time.

[The Vorlon]

"Treaties, like young girls and roses, last as long as they last"

Charles De Gaule

I think the US needs to give 1 years notice to pull out.

Fine, give'em a year's notice.

[Democratic Hawk]

Surely, if a nation's sovereign body (e.g. UK Parliament or US Congress) vote to declare war on another nation. how is it illegal?

Perhaps if the UN showed a bick of backbone we wouldn't be in this predicament over Iraq.

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Look now... I'm no fan of Annan (he's too soft on Dictators. Mind you so are all U.N GenSecs. At least he's not Kurt Waldheim...) and Dave's point's are spot on, but what I *will* say is that the Journo Interviewing Annan basically forced him to say that the War was "illegal"(I listened to the whole thing on Up All Night the UK's premier radio programme for insomniacs...)