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@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"