-- Luke
Quoting james at communistbanker.com:
> Thoughts on Annan interview:
>
> 1) This wasn't an unplanned outburst. The UN has been on the sidelines.
> After the Cold War there were high profile debates about the UN's role,
> German/Japanese seats on the Security Council, etc. Now no one seems to care
> much, and the US is doing its own thing. Annan is taking on the language of
> America's critics to bolster the UN's authority. This suggests that he is
> trying to cohere a relationship between the UN and critics of US
> unilateralism - Europe, the South, the Arab world - and NGOs, US
> multilateralists etc. But it's a surprising move from what is ostensibly an
> association of (almost) all nations.
>
> 2) There is nothing progressive in this. It is easy to imagine circumstances
> in which the UN would have given approval to invading Iraq. This wouldn't
> make it right, and if progressives endorse legalism in international
> relations, they make it harder to oppose 'legal' invasions.
>
> 3) Calling international law 'law' is a bit forced anyway. There are customs
> and practices and treaties, but there is no general will and no enforcer at
> the global level. Simply proclaiming acts illegal has no moral or legal
> force in international relations.
>
> --James
>
> James Greenstein
>
> --- "Leigh Meyers" <leighcmeyers at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Kofi Annan alluded to the illegality of the
> invasion of Iraq early in the conflict and
> the western news media buried it with
> "war stories"
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>