What did Kofi Annan do after saying Iraq war was illegal? Is that it ? ?

Question

Kofi Annan said the Iraq invasion in 2003 was illegal.(see link below)

So then what?

Has UN followed this up?

Shouldn't there be a UN inquiry?

I see they have had UN investigators building a case against President Bashir of Sudan for crimes against humanity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7501066.stm

The justification of WMD is now clearly false. There are none. Which means Saddam was telling the truth - at least about that.

And Bush and Blair were either telling lies - or inept. Either way - they shouldn't have anymore military responsibility as an absolute minimum.

Aren't they responsible in some way for crimes against humanity.

Here's the link to the UN of Kofi Annan claim war was illegal.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=11953&Cr=iraq&Cr1=

Answer 1

You are either severely uneducated or retarded because chemicals have been found.  ALSO, that is not the ONLY reason America went into Iraq.  Let Kofi build a case against President Bush, after all the s&^ it he let Saddam get away with for 12 years, any thing Kofi says is IRRELEVANT.

Answer 2

What can UN do, US literally owns the UN. There is no doubt about it, the war was illegal. France, Germany and other countries wouldn't pass the resolution, unless it states that military action will only be taken, if sanctioned by security council. So when US saw security council wouln't sanction military action, it simply decided to unilaterally attack Iraq, backed by UK.

=====================================

Resolution 1441:

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/re...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/america...

======================================...

▬ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

~ [ UN ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte ]

▬ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.

~ [UN ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution ]

▬ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.

~ [ UN ambassador for Syria ]

“And where, for God's sake, does that wretched, utterly dishonest phrase "coalition forces" come from? There is no "coalition" in this Iraq war. There are the Americans and the British and a few Australians. That's it.”

~ (Robert Fisk), The Independent – 25 March 2003

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/r...

Answer 3

I wouldn't count on the UN to do anything. They are pathetic and useless. I don't understand why people think Kofi Annan is such a great person. He was in charge of the UN peacekeeping forces in the 90s. Instead of putting more troops into Rwanda like generals on the ground asked for, he pulled all the the UN troops out. Then 800,000 Rwandans were savagely murdered. And now the same thing is happening in Darfur. The UN hasn't done anything to stop the killing there. Who cares what the h**l Kofi Annan says? He and the UN are a joke.

Answer 4

Well that the considering that the UN do pretty much what the US want or at least don't interfere, it is hardly surprising that there has been no follow up.

Answer 5

What he did was to continue to clean out the UN cash box. Any claim he made was of no merit. What should have been investigated was how he found himself in that position at the UN.