Williams' response is pretty weak. Read the Security Council resolutions, viz.,
--1368 of 12 September 2001 (it hardly matters which country moved it) <www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm>, and
--1373 of 28 September 2001 <www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7158.doc.htm>.
It's obvious in the texts that there is no authorization for the US to attack Afghanistan or anyone else. On the contrary, there is an insistence upon international "cooperation" and "assistance" rather than belligerence. The resolutions are particularly concerned with he suppression of terrorism and those who support it *within* the borders of member states.
It was so clear that the US had failed to receive authorization that, on the day the bombing started, US ambassador Negroponte (who knows something about terrorism) circulated a letter to the SC members with the assertion (obsessively repeated) that the "inherent right ... of self-defense" justifies the US attack on Afghanistan and anyone else it wants, rather than any SC authorization <www.un.int/usa/s-2001-946.htm>.
Negroponte's assertion is a direct rejection of the SC's conclusion, that it remains "seized of" (i.e., in possession of) the matter. It's obvious that the procedures of Article 51 of the charter, to authorize the use of military force, have not been exercised, so Negroponte is forced to fall back on the ever-elastic "self-defense." The world recognizes that for the mendacity it is.
The silence of Russia, China and others can be understood from their desire to deal with their own terrorists -- Chechens, Uighurs, and other local groups like the ETA and IRA -- without let or hindrance from international law, and mostly within their own borders -- hence the attention to such matters. Their silence can hardly be construed as authorization for war under international law.
Williams himself contrasts the current situation with the "definitely UN authorized Gulf War" and acknowledges that the US actively avoided UN authorization for the attack on Serbia. Of course on these questions his reputation precedes him: e.g., "The Nation has not distinguished itself in its coverage of the Kosovo crisis ... It should embarrass the editors that its UN Correspondent Ian Williams is a fanatical hawk, who supports the NATO violations of the UN Charter and contemptuous treatment of the UN itself" <www.zmag.org/altmediaarchive.htm>. --CGE
On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Doug Henwood wrote:
> I asked Ian Williams to comment on Francis Boyle's talk, forwarded to
> this list, and to address the legality of the war in general. Here's
> his response.
>
> Doug
>
> ----
>
> At 10:50 AM -0500 11/22/01, Ian Williams wrote:
> >The US did not seek the Sept 12 resolution. The French introduced it. That
> >resolution invoked the article of the Charter determining that the US would
> >be acting in self defence. Under the UN charter military action is illegal
> >unless authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII, - or in self
> >defence. So the resolution made specific authorization of military action
> >un-necessary. It was a dangerous blank cheque, since at the time no one was
> >sure whether the Wolfowitz's would win in Washington.
> >
> >But it was a legal blank cheque. At the same time NATO Council decided that
> >it was an attack on one of its members which therefore permitted collective
> >action.
> >
> >Later the US did go back for resolution 1373, which repeated all the above,
> >listed specific measures to be taken and invoked under Chapter VII making
> >it legally binding. At no time for either resolution was there any
> >opposition whatsoever from any member of the Security Council, including
> >Russia and China. At no time has anyone on the Council raised any objections
> >whatsoever to US action.
> >
> >And Afghanistan was already under sanctions by the SC for refusal to hand
> >over Bin Laden over Nairobi etc.
> >
> >
> >As I think I said in ITT, it reminds me of all the people who opposed the
> >definitely UN authorized Gulf War and then tut-tutted because NATO did not
> >go to the SC over Kosovo.
> >
> >The war is definitely legal. You can oppose the tactics, and maybe even the
> >targets may be illegal - certainly if the bombing of AlJazeera was
> >deliberate is was a war crime, but the international community regards the
> >war itself as legal under international law. Perhaps the encouraging thing
> >is that the US did actually go out of its normally unilateralist way to
> >secure legal cover.
> >
> >
> >Is it a just war, or a fair war, Is it politically or ethically sound? They
> >are different questions. Of course there is a hypocrisy factor. As Francis
> >Boyle himself would point out, all of the countries concerned let Bosnia
> >stew in its blood for years despite UN resolutions that called upon them to
> >act. In an area swarming with NATO troops, Mladic and Karadjic are free
> >despite Srebrenica, which killed twice as many people as at the WTC.
>