Kofi's Law
<font size=4>Why the U.N. has no moral standing.
<font size=3>WSJ.com
Monday, September 20, 2004 12:01 a.m.
<font size=4>
Last we checked, U.N. chief Kofi Annan was promising to help the U.S. rebuild Iraq. But pressed by a BBC interviewer last week, the Secretary-General stated flat out that the liberation of Iraq was <font color=blue>"illegal"<font color=black> and a violation of the U.N. Charter. He had already opined that <font color=blue>"there should have been a second resolution"<font color=black> authorizing the invasion, and that <font color=blue>"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time."<font color=black>
These thoughts could certainly stand a little parsing. Mr. Annan seems to be saying that the only way force can be used legitimately in the modern world is with the unanimous permission of the U.N. Security Council. So perhaps we should remind him of some recent history.
For example, there was that splendidly legitimate U.N. operation in Bosnia, where its blue-helmeted peacekeepers watched with indifference as Serbian soldiers rounded up for slaughter thousands of Muslim men in the so-called U.N. <font color=blue>"safe haven"<font color=black> of Srebrenica. Or Rwanda in 1994, where Mr. Annan--then head of the U.N. peacekeeping office--shrugged off panicked warning calls from the U.N. commander on the ground, thereby allowing the slaughter of 800,000.
And if liberating Iraq was wrong, Mr. Annan must also believe it was wrong for NATO to have intervened in Kosovo, where Russia once again prevented Security Council unanimity. How about the recent French intervention in the Ivory Coast, which the Security Council got around to blessing only after it was a fait accompli? And notwithstanding the latest U.N. promises, what if Gallic and Chinese oil interests block international action in Sudan, allowing the continued attacks on Darfurians? It would appear, on this evidence, that Security Council unanimity isn't exactly the gold standard of legitimacy, much less of morality.
And what's this business about a <font color=blue>"second" <font color=black>Iraq resolution? U.N. Resolution 1441 was the 17th resolution demanding that Saddam verifiably disarm, behave with some modicum of respect for the rights of his own citizens, and otherwise comply with conditions of the ceasefire following the end of the 1991 Gulf War. From firing at American planes patrolling the no-fly zones, to widespread sanctions busting, to a banned long-range missile program, the Iraqi dictator was in undeniable breach in March 2003 of the terms under which his regime was spared back in 1991. In other words, there was never any legal need for even Resolution 1441.
This is the same Kofi Annan, by the way, who said after saving Saddam from a U.S. armada in 1998 that <font color=blue>"You can do a lot with diplomacy, but with diplomacy backed up by force you can get a lot more done."<font color=black> But in large part thanks to such diplomatic interventions by Mr. Annan on Saddam's behalf, by 2003 the dictator apparently believed that this <font color=blue>"force"<font color=black> was always going to be an illusion. He thought he'd slip the noose one more time.
The Secretary-General's latest posturing is far from harmless. The U.N. has been given the lead role in organizing the elections in Iraq scheduled for January. But Mr. Annan's <font color=blue>"illegal"<font color=black> comments, which have been replayed across the Arab world, have given an added feeling of legitimacy to every jihadist hoping to disrupt the vote.
His comments also suggest that Mr. Annan belongs in the same category as France and Russia in never intending the <font color=blue>"serious consequences"<font color=black> threatened by Resolution 1441. We wonder: Could the corrupt Oil for Food program and all the revenues it generated for the U.N. have anything to do with it?
<font size=3>
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
