By Kim Weissman
October 1, 2004
|
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has formally declared that the liberation of Iraq was illegal, because it was done without United Nations approval. The following exchange took place during a recent interview with the BBC: Question: Are you bothered that the U.S. is becoming an unrestrainable, unilateral superpower? Annan: Well, I think over the last year, we've all gone through lots of painful lessons. I'm talking about since the war in Iraq. And, I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time. Question: Done without U.N. approval, or without clearer U.N. approval? Annan: Without U.N. approval, and much broader support from the international community. Question: Do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done? Annan: Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution, because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But, then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be. Question: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war? Annan: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the U.N. Charter. Question: It was illegal? Annan: Yes, if you wish. Question: It was illegal? Annan: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the U.N. Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view, it was illegal. Since the end of the Iraq war, we've learned why there was no additional Security Council resolution, and why there never could have been a clear declaration of war by the U.N. It has to do with all the money that was flowing from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program. That multi-billion dollar money flow depended on keeping Saddam in power. If he was overthrown, the U.N. and many of our foreign "friends" knew that the gravy train would end. And, some of those parties also knew that their duplicity - selling military equipment to Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions, some of which resulted in the deaths of U.S. soldiers during and after the war - would be uncovered. Annan calls the liberation of Iraq "illegal," but he remains stubbornly silent about the illegal sales of prohibited equipment to Saddam's regime, and he is hardly helpful in unraveling the diversion of money from starving Iraqi children under the oil-for-food program run by his own U.N. Before the war, Annan and Saddam held meetings in some of Saddam's new, ornate palaces, yet it never seems to have occurred to Annan to wonder how Saddam could be spending millions on palaces, while his people starved. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there was no corruption in the oil-for-food program; and let's also assume, for the sake of argument, that there was no illegal arms-dealing by our "friends" and "allies." Setting aside those extraneous matters forces us to confront the most fundamental issue facing America now, and an issue that will confront this nation for many years to come - the meaning and the continued relevance of our national sovereignty. In 1998, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act (202 republicans and 157 democrats in the House voting yes, and passing the Senate by unanimous consent). Democrat Tom Daschle said that the objective was "to make clear that U.S. national interests are threatened if Saddam Hussein is allowed to thwart the international community's efforts to shut down his development of weapons of mass destruction programs." Democrat Joe Biden remarked, "Our national security would be seriously compromised by a failure to stand up to the challenge he has confronted us with. Our strategic objective is to contain Saddam Hussein, and curtail his ability to produce the most deadly weapons known to mankind." Democrat President Clinton signed the bill into law. Following September 11, 2001, the republican administration of President Bush agreed that Iraq posed a threat to the world: "Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take." On October 16, 2002, the Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (215 republicans and 87 democrats in the House voting yes, and 48 republicans and 29 democrats in the Senate voting yes. President Bush signed the bill into law, and took action to remove the threat against America's national security. Thus we see large majorities of the House and the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, in two sessions of Congress, twice deciding that Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat to American national security. Two successive presidents, both Democrat and Republican, agreed that Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat to American national security. There was consistent and ongoing agreement among the elected representatives of the American people in both major political parties, in the legislative and executive branches, over a number of years, and confirmed by voters in successive elections. The unanimity of the American people, expressed through their elected representatives and through their direct votes, could not be more clear. But, the United Nations did not agree, and opposed the war. It does not matter whether one agrees or disagrees with the decision of President Bush, Congress, and the American people (as expressed through their elected representatives over multiple elections) to go to war against Iraq. The question is not whether a specific military action is wise or unwise, or whether certain actions are the right response or the wrong response to a given set of circumstances. There is a far larger issue than whether the Iraq war was right, or wrong. The fundamental issue is - Who are the proper parties to make decisions about American national security? Thus the questions are clearly put: Who decides when there is a threat to America, and who decides American policy when there is a threat? Do these decisions properly lie with the elected representatives of the American people, or with the United Nations? There are no more fundamental questions for a free people to decide: Who controls their destiny, and the fate of their nation? Are we a sovereign nation, free to decide our own destiny; or are we merely an appendage of the "global community," subject to the dictates of foreign powers? This election will go a long way toward answering those questions. John Kerry once recognized the serious threat that Saddam's WMD program posed to the United States: "...an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description... [Saddam'] first objective is to keep [note: he said keep, not develop] Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." (Congressional Record, page S12286; October 10, 1998). Kerry voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution in 2002, understanding that there was a serious threat to America, and that this country was entitled to take action to defend itself. Kerry clearly said so himself: "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat. When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security, and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes, because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." (Congressional Record, page S10174; October 9, 2002). But, John Kerry now says that the war "to hold Saddam Hussein accountable" was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," and he seems to agree with Annan that the war against Iraq was "illegal." Kerry's sister, heading a group called "Americans Overseas for Kerry," told The Australian that Australians were now targets of terrorism because of their support for Bush in "wanton disregard for international law." Is that how Kerry aims to persuade more allies to help in Iraq, by telling them that they make themselves targets for terrorists if they do help? Not that it matters - French and other European officials have already said they would never help in Iraq, even if Kerry is elected. But, this does show us where Kerry stands regarding the fundamental questions of national sovereignty posed above: Who decides when there is a threat to America, and who decides American policy when this nation is threatened? John Kerry's answer appears to be: The United Nations is the proper party to make those decisions. So, what changed Kerry's opinion? The most charitable explanation is that he's just shifting with the wind during an election year. If that's the case, he has no core principles. A less charitable explanation is that he accepts the United Nations as the proper party to define America's national interest. If that's the case, it means he is willing to subordinate American national sovereignty to the decisions of a foreign power not elected by, and not accountable to, the American people. Either explanation should disqualify him from national leadership, especially during wartime. Is there any evidence that Kerry is willing to say a firm "No" to the United Nations, on any issue - Iraq, the International Criminal Court, national missile defense, the Kyoto climate change treaty, global gun control, global taxation - anything? One final note on the danger of subordinating our national security to the United Nations, as Annan expects, and as our left-wing globalists think proper. In the same BBC interview, Annan was asked about the bloodshed in Sudan (which is still a member of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, exemplifying what a dangerous farce the U.N. has become). Secretary of State Powell called the situation in Sudan "genocide." Annan's response: "All of that will have to be looked at for one to make a determination, and I think the [Security] Council is discussing the issue of setting up a commission." The U.N.'s answer to genocide: to discuss setting up a commission - perhaps to count the dead bodies after the slaughter is over, as in Rwanda, where the death toll topped 800,000 while the U.N. fiddled. And, reflecting what can best be described as childish petulance, because he didn't get his way on Iraq, Annan also questioned the legitimacy of the elections in Iraq (scheduled for January) displaying a defeatism which no doubt gave great joy to the Iraqi insurgents. Just as leftists in the United States are willing to undermine and demoralize our military in Iraq for their own selfish political gain (thereby energizing our enemies, and increasing the risk to our troops, the same as leftists did during Vietnam), so Annan is apparently willing to sacrifice the chance for a future of freedom and stability for millions of Iraqis, because he didn't get his way on Iraq's liberation. And the left-wing internationalists in this country - including,
apparently, John Kerry - think that the United Nations should be
empowered to define American sovereignty, and determine American
national security. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our
troops dispersed through the world, only at the directive of the United
Nations." - John F. Kerry in the Harvard Crimson, February 18,
1970.
Kim Weissman says he's "just a retired private citizen, doing what I can to restore fidelity to our Constitution." |