Friday, September 17, 2004
The "Willing" to Kofi Annan: get stuffed
Kofi Annan's recent call that the war in Iraq was illegal drew a predictable reaction from the Coalition of the Willing members. Each reaction, in turn, tells us a bit about each participant:
The American one was straight-shootin' and to the point. Said President Bush at a rally in St Cloud, Minnesota: "They [the Security Council] voted by 15 to nothing in the UN Security Council for Saddam Hussein to disclose, disarm or face serious consequences... I believe when bodies say something they better mean it." Thus showing his complete ignorance of how the "international community" operates. He clearly doesn't get it, and is a continuing danger to world peace.
The British one was legalistic. Said Labour Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt: "We spelt out at the time our reasons for believing the conflict in Iraq was indeed lawful and why we believed it was necessary to uphold those UN resolutions... The Attorney General made the government's position on the legal basis for the use of military force in Iraq clear at the time."
And the Australian one was plucky and in your face, as becomes of a middle power which can sometimes say these things and get away with them. In the words of the Prime Minister Howard: "The problem with the United Nations - it is a wonderful body in many respects and it does great humanitarian work - is that it can only proceed at the pace of the collective willingness of the permanent members... You are seeing it now, tragically in Sudan. The body is paralysed. It is not doing much and the reason is you can't get agreement among the major powers. And people are dying, thousands of people are dying every month in Sudan." And: "Mr Howard said while Iraq was a major focus of attention, the number of people dying in Sudan was far greater 'and the United Nations sadly has been unable to do anything'."
Sadly but truly.
Update: Reader Ron Michaels has a novel suggestion:
|
The American one was straight-shootin' and to the point. Said President Bush at a rally in St Cloud, Minnesota: "They [the Security Council] voted by 15 to nothing in the UN Security Council for Saddam Hussein to disclose, disarm or face serious consequences... I believe when bodies say something they better mean it." Thus showing his complete ignorance of how the "international community" operates. He clearly doesn't get it, and is a continuing danger to world peace.
The British one was legalistic. Said Labour Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt: "We spelt out at the time our reasons for believing the conflict in Iraq was indeed lawful and why we believed it was necessary to uphold those UN resolutions... The Attorney General made the government's position on the legal basis for the use of military force in Iraq clear at the time."
And the Australian one was plucky and in your face, as becomes of a middle power which can sometimes say these things and get away with them. In the words of the Prime Minister Howard: "The problem with the United Nations - it is a wonderful body in many respects and it does great humanitarian work - is that it can only proceed at the pace of the collective willingness of the permanent members... You are seeing it now, tragically in Sudan. The body is paralysed. It is not doing much and the reason is you can't get agreement among the major powers. And people are dying, thousands of people are dying every month in Sudan." And: "Mr Howard said while Iraq was a major focus of attention, the number of people dying in Sudan was far greater 'and the United Nations sadly has been unable to do anything'."
Sadly but truly.
Update: Reader Ron Michaels has a novel suggestion:
"I personally would like a building demolition company to implode the UN building as has been done to many Federal Housing buildings in the US. We could build a memorial to all of the people around the world who have died due to the inaction of the UN on the site."An International Community Holocaust Memorial?
|
