The Guardian
January 16, 2003

The UN, a Fig Leaf for War

by Seumas Milne

Even if the US is able to bribe and bully its way to a new UN resolution in the face of world opinion - with oil contracts here and nods to ethnic repression there - that endorsement will lack any genuine international legitimacy. An invasion and occupation of a country which offers no credibly "clear and present threat" to any other state constitutes in any case a multiple violation of the UN charter.

FULL TEXT

Tweet
Follow @wisdomfund

"UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq

[Resolution 1511 represents a compromise with the United States and its co-sponsors--the United Kingdom, Spain and Cameroon--on one side and France, Germany and Russia on the other. The United States did not want to establish any timetable for the transfer of authority from the occupying powers to a new elected Iraqi government and wanted a mandate for a U.S.-led multinational force. The other side wanted a greater role for the United Nations in administering the country and assisting the transition to self-rule, as well as a firm timetable for the transfer of that authority.--Jim Wurst, "Security Council Unanimously Approves New U.N. Role In Iraq," UN Wire, October 16, 2003]

[The Security Council unanimously approved Thursday an American and British resolution authorizing an American-led multinational force in Iraq. The measure also set a Dec. 15 deadline for the Iraqi Governing Council to lay out a timetable for creating a constitution and democratic government.--Felicity Barringer, "Unanimous Vote by U.N.'s Council Adopts Iraq Plan," New York Times, October 17, 2003]