First, one by
Ivana Bacik. She claims that Kofi Annan "delivered - in diplomatic language - a powerful rebuke to the US over the invasion of Iraq". The beauty of diplomatic language is that the same words can mean many things to many people. I've
read his speech twice and I'm not sure where the "powerful rebuke" is. I suspect its contained in this section, so here it is (note how he
rebukes those who simply "denounce unilateralism"):
Article 51 of the Charter prescribes that all states, if attacked, retain the inherent right of self-defence. 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.
Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an armed attack with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group.
Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, states have the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other states, and even while weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still being developed.
According to this argument, states are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council. Instead, they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions.
This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years.
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.
But it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some states feel uniquely vulnerable, and thus drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action.
Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded.
At that time, a group of far-sighted leaders, led and inspired by [US] President Franklin D Roosevelt, were determined to make the second half of the 20th Century different from the first half.
They saw that the human race had only one world to live in, and that unless it managed its affairs more prudently, all human beings might perish.
Virtually all States agree that the Council should be enlarged, but there is no agreement on the details
So they drew up rules to govern international behaviour, and founded a network of institutions, with the United Nations at the centre, in which the peoples of the world could work together for the common good.
He then goes on to talk about the reforms that are needed in the way the Security Council functions.
There's no mention of Iraq in there. In fact, although the Bush administration laid out its case for pre-emptive war in a
policy paper, at no time did it invoke that policy to justify action against Iraq. Rather, the President and others emphasised Iraq's non-compliance with the UN resolutions (17 of them, I believe) to justify the war.
Resolution 1441 of last year was the basis on which the war was launched. The Bush Administration was clear at the time that this resolution was sufficient for war if Iraq failed to fully comply, which NO ONE has argued Iraq did.
The Secretary General also said: "Meanwhile, let me reaffirm the great importance I attach to a successful outcome in Iraq. Whatever view each of us may take of the events of recent months, it is vital for all of us that the outcome is a stable and democratic Iraq, at peace with itself and with its neighbours, and contributing to stability in the region."
Something Ms. Bacik's obviously not ready for as she finds "particularly worrying" the idea that the Taoiseach may send Irish troops to Iraq under a new resolution.
