Annan lays it out

“By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned President Bush that his doctrine of preemptive military intervention posed a fundamental challenge to the United Nations and could lead to a global free-for-all.

In a speech to be delivered shortly before Bush addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Annan declared that the Iraq crisis had brought the United Nations to a "fork in the road" as decisive as 1945 when the world body was founded.


Without mentioning the United States by name, Annan spoke as states in the 191-member world body were struggling to heal deep rifts caused by the war on Iraq, in which the United States acted without U.N. Security Council approval.


Annan questioned U.S. arguments that nations have the "right and obligation to use force preemptively" against unconventional weapons systems even while they were still being developed.


"My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification," Annan warned in a text of his speech released in advance.


He said the U.N. Charter allowed military action for the purpose of self defense.


"But until now it has been understood that when states go beyond that and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations," he said.


"Now some say this understanding is no longer tenable since an 'armed attack' with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time," Annan said.


"This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles, on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years," Annan said.


NEW RULES ON WAR?


However, Annan said the 15-member Security Council, in charge of war and peace, might need to consider rewriting the rule book for the use of force.


"Its members may need to begin a discussion on the criteria for an early authorization of coercive measures to address certain types of threats -- for instance, terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction," Annan said.


He said he was establishing a "high-level panel of eminent personalities" to examine current challenges to peace and security and recommend ways the United Nations could reform its institutions.


"Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road," Annan said. "This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded."


Annan again berated U.N. members for not being able to agree on an expansion of the Security Council, which has remained nearly the same for 58 years.


"I would respectfully suggest to you, excellencies, that in the eyes of your peoples the difficulties of reaching agreement does not excuse your failure to do so," Annan said.


Jan Kavan, the outgoing assembly president from the Czech Republic said earlier that U.N. ambassadors alone could not resolve Security Council reform after a decade of trying.





"For that, you would need a major political breakthrough in the capitals of certain key member states," he said.”

“Phaedrus, what's your opinion of the UN? I think it is basically a toothless tiger, too big to be effective. Smaller organizations such as NATO seem to work better, although NATO has stumbled somewhat lately. I'm more for the 2-3 nation pacts than these huge pseudo-"world body" types.”

“My opinion of it is that it is a necessary evil, if you will. It's a body that is representative of governments around the world, and if the US is to be seen as anything other than a superpower bully, we have to find a way to meld the UN to our likeness, if not our specific interests, through statesmanship and tact.”

“Kofi Annan has as much authority and power as a bathroom attendant.”

“191 members, probably 1/2 of them about the size and influence of Rhode Island. Perhaps for the UN, the USA should recognize States rights and have 50 member States, the European Union still counts each member. The total membership would then be 240, but the US vote would be more representative.

Recognition of this is the Security Council where a few Countries are regognized as having more say than others, or to quote Orwell are "more equal than others".

Fair representation is always a problem, head count, land area, purchasing power, what is fair?

The UN is a facade, where 1/2 of the members who can vote against the major dozen, are unable to feed, house, or heal their populace without continuous aid.
Africa is rampant with examples of genocide and both declared and undeclared attacks on neighboring countries. South America has had its problems in the past 50 years also. Lets look at the Khymer Rouge in Asia.

Where has the UN made a real difference ? Where have they even tried ?”

“I generally refuse to make any comments on U.S. policy and/or world affairs on this board because I come here for the same reason as I go into the backcountry - to get away from it, BUT, you might be interested in my country's Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien's address to the U.N. committee on terrorism in New York yesterday. It would probably be posted on the Canadian Press site.”

“Don't they have N.Korea and Libia on the human rights council?”

“I'm with Manuka - the UN is representative of too many dictators to be a legitimate authority.”

“I might agree with that if there were an alternative body that were representative of world governments.”

“That's the problem, phaedrus, there's too many dictators in the world for there to be a legitimate, representative, world authority.”

“Certainly, Mutt. We have to play with the hand we're dealt, though. We can't ignore the UN and continue to act unilaterally if we expect any support from other nations. We also shouldn't be setting precedents that we are not prepared for other nations to follow.”

“The US can and should act unilaterally in its own interests when necessary. Of course a unilateral action is undertaken with little to no hope of support from other countries. I would expect nothing less from any legitimate government.”

“I say if your a country like the United States that's an economic superpower as well as a military superpower you can do whatever it takes to stay that way. If that means crushing people under the weight of a big stick for the common good then so be it.

The United Nations would not exist if it were not for this country.”

“Here is a disingenuous statement: "The world is not a perfect place". That being the case, it seems that is the responsibility of every human being to work towards making the world a better place. That is the task of the UN, no matter how flawed that institution is. The US could be using much more influence to make the UN a better world organization, as could most member nations.
Another point. To blame poor countries for being poor, as is witnessed a few posts up, is bad policy, especially when your prosperous country derives some of its prosperity from their natural resources and cheap labor.”

“Disingenuous - cheap labor makes Americans unemployed, how does that create prosperity ?

A far greater cause for poverty is politcal”

“instability, and civil wars.”

“And some, unmentioned "rich" countries have had nothing to do with destabilizing certain "poor" countries' politics?”

“Good job, dunadan. I follow your train of thought on this.

I think the UN has a multitude of responsibilities and those who are members should follow the rules.

While every member nation might not always agree, it seems apparent that the Charter of the UN has worked fairly efficently over the years and if the US desires to remain a member (as they should, IMHO), our Executive and Legislative bodies should be showing more support.”

“Regardless of political attitudes, Annan's speech was well crafted and presented.”

“Nicely said, Dun. We are a member of the UN. We enforce its rules (supposedly) as a member of the security council. We should abide by those rules.”

“My belief is that the UN is extremely important. While all parties may not agree, communication is essential. We should not have gone into Iraq without their mandate.”