U.N. Panel Rejects Bush Stance on Preventive Military Action

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23416-2004Nov30.html

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 1, 2004; Page A15

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30 -- An influential U.N.-appointed panel challenged the Bush administration's right to use military force against an enemy that does not pose an imminent military threat. The 16-member panel, which was appointed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said in a long-awaited report that only the U.N. Security Council has the legal standing to authorize such a "preventive war."

The panel's findings reflect persistent international unease over the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year without an explicit council endorsement, noting that "there is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power, or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower." It also recommends the establishment of five guidelines that must be met before force can be legitimately used -- including a determination that force is used as a last resort and that the threat is serious.

"If there are good arguments for preventive military action, with good evidence to support them, they should be put to the Security Council," the report said. But "in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk of the global order . . . is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action . . . to be accepted."

more

[damntexdem]

1. Aw, what does the rest of the world know?

God only speaks to the USA, via Dubya. ;-)

[TexasLawyer]

2. The UN just hates Freedom!

Simple as that! You're either for freedom or against it. Down with the haters who hate freedom hating!

[whiteroseII]

3. "PREVENTIVE WAR." - calling a spade a spade

that is a shot across the bow if i ever saw one... they are bringing up Nuremberg precedent.

can we call'em FASCIST now !

:scared:

[George_S]

4. Yeah, but the UN don't ride horeses...

... so what do they know?

[MaineDem]

5. Kick

Interesting...

[Mechatanketra]

6. Muted sound and tepid fury ...

... signifying less than nothing.

What we have here is comparable to a Kitty Genovese case writ on the international scale, only instead of merely huddling in one's apartment while the crime takes place, you wander out into the halls to offer your considered opinions on the aesthetic shortcomings of the butchering.

The elephant in the room here is that America's invasion of Iraq is a case of mass killing that governments -- embodied in the UN itself -- "have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent". And that fact underscores the biggest need for reform in the UN: the Allied nations never gave a thought to a world in which they had become the kind of threat they just defeated. Rather than adding permanent members, the world would be better served to revoke the veto powers of the existing Big 5 (of course, on a pragmatic level, I realize this would just mean that America, China, and Russia would quit outright -- but at least they'd be open about their opposition to the UN's purposes instead of pretending to lead the cause.)