EXCLUSIVE: Security Council gives U.S. go-ahead

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Current News : One Thread

Private assurances go beyond members' public stances

UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations Security Council has given the green light to the United States to launch a "proportionate" military strike inside Afghanistan in retaliation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Sources inside the Security Council say the 15 member nations unanimously agreed that their Sept. 12 resolution condemning the attacks also endorsed an initial military response by the United States, and that Washington requires no further UN permission to act.
This is contrary to the public stances of Security Council members France, China and Russia, which hold veto power in the council. Those countries' leaders have argued that the UN, not Washington, should lead the international fight against terrorism announced by George W. Bush, the U.S. President.
The change has come about, say the sources, because Washington's approach to retaliation appears to be "measured" and "in the spirit" of the resolution.
"Outside the Council, some states have made noises that the Americans ought to come back for further UN endorsement," said one high-level source on the Council. "Inside, no one is making those sorts of noises, including the Russians and the Chinese."
A second Council member said: "Should they come come to us for permission to act militarily? Certainly not."
"Should they inform us? It would be better if they want to build a coalition over the long term. My understanding is that all 15 of the Council's members are in agreement on this," the member said. The United States, as one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Council, is aware of the endorsement.
The Council's fifth permanent member, Britain, has strongly endorsed the U.S. military plans.
The sources emphasize that the Council has not given the United States a "blank cheque" for continued military action.
The sources say the Council is encouraged that Washington is not talking about launching a widespread bombing campaign against Afghanistan, but appears to be limiting its initial military response to attacks on the country's ruling Taleban, as well as on Osama bin Laden, the terrorist described by the Taleban as their "guest."
Beyond the initial strike, Washington is also calling for a broad and long fight against terrorism on several fronts, waged in part by enforcing anti-terrorism treaties at the UN, sharing intelligence and co-operating in trying to track money used to finance terrorists.
"Washington hasn't been saying, 'Let's nuke Kabul,' " said the first source in reference to the Afghan capital. "They also recognize that just blasting a bomb into the desert isn't the answer either."
The private position of the Council emerged yesterday as Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, called on the UN's 189 members to act against terrorism through the world body. "The organization ... alone can give the global legitimacy to the long-term struggle against terrorism," he told the General Assembly.
The day after the terrorist attacks, the Security Council passed Resolution 1368, which described the acts as a "threat to international peace and security."
That, say the Council sources, is now considered to be enough to allow the United States to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which speaks of the "inherent right ... of self defence if an armed attack occurs."
"The Council is not likely to explicitly say that publicly," said the first source. "But that is the reality."
Washington has been unwilling to ask the Council for specific approval to act militarily, fearing such a request would spark months of debate.

http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20010925/704712.html

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

Answers

Thanks, brent, that's encouraging news.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

I doubt the US really cares at this point whether the UN approves or not.

Whether we get a coalition or not, we are going to attack. I only hope the attack is enough to make everyone sit up and take notice that the US is NOT amused by the destruction on its soil.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001


From what I've been reading, it seems the experts would much prefer the US to go it alone or with Britain so that there is no need to hold the hands of the French or Italy or any other UN representative who feels we might hurt someone's feelings.

-- Anonymous, September 25, 2001

Moderation questions? read the FAQ