|
Kofi Annan speaks: the whole world listens attentively and (most of the time) heeds. Its foremost statesman, for the first time, hails from an African country, Ghana. That is where he said he would return on the termination of his appointment: to research into agro-productivity as a means towards providing more food for that continent’s hungry millions. Thus ended his BBC interview, which I watched twice over considering it was so interesting, as only the BBC can make it.
Most probably the whole world usually agrees with what the UN Secretary General has to say. Only on very few occasions does he provoke any controversy. This time, however, it did happen. With a bang, too. Hardly was the broadcast over than the pro-Iraq War lobbyists and governments worldwide started firing angry retaliatory salvos, like ‘outrageous’, ‘undiplomatic’, ‘political interference’ and ‘paralysed institution,’ in full rejection of his categorical affirmation that last year’s war on Iraq was illegal.
Annan invokes the UN Charter; the others international law. World citizens, possibly even legal gurus, become muddled in their thinking. With full justification, I must add. At least judging by the mental boggles I myself am experiencing at this moment whilst I jot down my thoughts and invite readers to tell me whether I classify as an average citizen or a yob who cannot steer clear of muddles.
What is the point of having a Security Council at the UN if its charter is alien or not quite compatible with international law? And if there IS a point, should not the former prevail over the latter where disagreements exist? Same as EU legislation does over national laws among member states? At least in theory, since there are occasional exceptions when the ‘big boys’ in the EU somehow always manage to get away with most of their infringements.
Furthermore, how can one have laws without accompanying penalties for their breakers? The average mind boggles at the thought of such a syndrome prevailing at a national or lower level of administration. Imagine the masses of people openly flouting the laws and regulations, at times simply for mere bravado, in the full knowledge that no punishment could be meted out to them. A breeding ground for social chaos forsooth.
Personally, last year I was annoyed at the French, the German and the Russian attitude for their obstructionist manoeuvring to require a second Security Council resolution in order to decide on what type of action to take against Saddam’s arrogant defiance of its previous resolution (and many others before) warning him repeatedly of ‘serious consequences.’ A second resolution which any one of them could have eventually vetoed, and probably would, thus frustrating all prior efforts hitherto undertaken over a span of twelve years to make Saddam respect the UN of which his country was a member and which, incidentally, had helped out a lot during his earlier war with Iran.
I still strongly believe that the world can only be a safer place to inhabit without the likes of Saddam Hussein. But I equally believe that his annihilation needed foolproof legal backing. Should this turn out not to have been the case, now that Kofi Annan has challenged it, I would admit my mistake in supporting Iraq’s invasion. At that time I was ‘accused’ by my friends of having shifted much too much to the right as I grew older. Like Tony Blair? Or nearer the centre? Perhaps.
The crux of the matter is: what law? Is the UN charter law? Is its flagrant disregard something ‘illegal’ or simply ‘unlawful’ or even ‘illicit’ if you can understand the nuances in the meaning. Which I am not sure that I do.
If this distinction is muddling you, take heart: you are not alone, but in the company of a vast majority among those who generally think soberly, but who simply cannot always fathom legalistic niceties that often engender controversy or unnecessary hostility. What is worse, they encourage the strong and the mighty to abuse, oppress and trample on the weak and the wretched. Their conscience turns clean in the conviction that their actions are bound to secure the approval of a sizeable chunk in the global critical mass of opinions.
Does it matter that much when an aggressor country temporarily loses the respect of the international community when flouting the UN charter? It does not look to be so, considering that UN sanctions or penalties are, respectively, dubious and inexistent, and can anyway be vetoed by any one permanent member of the Security Council by invoking international law in justification of his country’s aggression which is quickly forgotten among ‘friends.’
Certainly I am not implying in any way that the function of the Security Council, or for that matter the UN itself, lacks substance or is, global security-wise, as impotent as its predecessor, the League of Nations, which could not avert a second world war as it was meant to do when set up after the first. What boggles my mind is how ineffectual the UN has shown itself to be in dealing with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein - twice in a matter of a decade or so.
Or, previously, in restraining the several instances of camouflaged aggression committed by its mighty veto-equipped members against small nations with which they were not happy and not for world security reasons. By way of just one example, I mention the 1980’s carnage in Nicaragua caused by the CIA-funded American ‘Contra’ army, resulting in the slaughter of thousands of children and youngsters. The World Court itself condemned the United States for its “ unlawful use of force” and illegal economic warfare against that small neighbouring country. “Undeterred, American representatives at the UN Security Council vetoed a resolution calling on all governments to observe international law” (John Pilger quoting from Noam Chomsky).
Today, with Messrs. Bush, Blair, Howard, Berlusconi et al in the wake of the UN’s Secretary General’s utterances on alleged illegalities and factual non-conforming with its Charter, where exactly do we stand vis-à-vis international law and world order?
Can’t help feeling muddled and boggled.
|
