Bill's Comment Page

The United Nations session commences amid universal 'bonhomie'

Well ... not quite. But I see some positive signs nevertheless.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan kicked-off proceedings with an impassioned speech reminding members why the UN had been set up and recounting that it had helped to build bridges between opposing nations. In the view of some (but not me) he 'rebuked' the United States for taking unilateral action in Iraq; it is true he said this action was to be regretted (which it certainly is - or at least the need to take the action), but went on to warn members it was unrealistic not to face up to the dangers represented by terrorism. As a diplomat, Mr Annan is required to do the near impossible - appear neutral and 'paternalistic' in the face of a wide diversity of opinion amongst various members. Just a few quotes to show what I mean:

Addressing Assembly, Annan warns UN at crossroads over issue of unilateral action "The unilateralism of recent events has called into question the decades-old tradition of global consensus on collective security and brought the international community to a fork in the road, portending a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded." "Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an 'armed attack' with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group. Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, States have the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other States, and even while weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still being developed." "This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last fifty-eight years." "But it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable, and thus drive them to take unilateral action." "In short, Excellencies, I believe the time is ripe for a hard look at fundamental policy issues, and at the structural changes that may be needed in order to address them. History is a harsh judge - it will not forgive us if we let this moment pass."

After this we had a speech from the US President, George W Bush. As trailed widely, it offered no 'apology' for the action taken by the coalition, but instead stated clearly his aims and hopes for Iraq; that it become a stable and prosperous democracy which would neither threaten its own people or its neighbours. A refreshing reiteration of what the removal of Saddam Hussein was all about. Just a brief quote:

President Bush Says Democratic Transition in Iraq Won't Be Rushed In his speech, Bush said the United States was working on a new Iraq resolution that will "expand the UN's role in Iraq. As in the aftermath of other conflicts, the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, training civil servants, and conducting free and fair elections."

But he insisted that the speed of the process of transforming Iraq into a democracy should not be influenced by outside parties - it should neither be speeded up, nor retarded. It was quite obvious he was looking straight at the delegations from certain countries whilst making these remarks.

Then we had the interesting sight of the President of France, Jacques Chirac, not quite managing to live up to the slightly more conciliatory tone seemingly presaged by his US media interviews prior to his UN speech:

Nul ne peut agir seul au nom de tous "Dans un monde ouvert, nul ne peut s'isoler, nul ne peut agir seul au nom de tous et nul ne peut accepter l'anarchie d'une societe sans regle. Il n'y a pas d'alternative aux Nations Unies." My translation: In an open world, no-one can isolate himself, none may act alone in the name of all and no-one should accept the anarchy of a world without rules. There is no alternative to the United Nations.

Now I agree in principle with many of the sentiments Monsieur Chirac seemed to be expressing, but the practical reality is that his country (and he specifically) had stated clearly his intention of vetoing any resolution which would have authorised military action against Saddam Hussein prior to the conflict. The choice was therefore to leave a murderous dictator in power or to remove him by force. The unilateralism of the coalition was forced upon it by the obstructionism and pusillanimity of France in particular, aided and abetted by Germany and Russia.

There was in reality no choice. I am glad that the UK participated in this dreadful, but essential, task.

There will be more hard choices to make in the months and years ahead - the point I think Kofi Annan was making, and as he said there is not the option of closing ones eyes to this reality, whilst retaining a modicum of credibility.