UNITED NATIONS - U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said in a BBC interview that the Bush Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq (news - web sites) was "illegal" because it didn't have U.N. Security Council approval.


U.N. Charter allows nations to take military action with Security Council approval as an explicit enforcement action, such as during the Korean War and the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites).


But in 2003, in the buildup to the Iraq war, the United States dropped an attempt to get a Security Council resolution approving the invasion when it became apparent it would not pass.


"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time — without U.N. approval and much broader support from the international community," he said in an interview with the BBC World Service on Wednesday.


At the time, Annan had underlined the lack of legitimacy for a war without U.N. approval, saying: "If the United States and others were to go outside the Security Council and take unilateral action they would not be in conformity with the Charter."


On Wednesday, after being asked three times whether the lack of council approval for the war meant it was illegal, he said: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view it was illegal."


On Thursday, British Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt said her government disagreed with Annan. Britain was a leading supporter of the U.S.-led invasion and argued that three earlier U.N. resolutions provided the legal basis for toppling the government of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


"There have always been different views on that matter and ... of course I respect his views on this matter and I regret that we disagree with them," Hewitt told BBC radio.


"The important thing now is that we and the U.N. and the international community continue working with the Iraqi people so that they can achieve what they all want, which is a safe, secure, democratic Iraq."


Annan also said that the wave of violence engulfing Iraq puts in doubt the national elections scheduled for January.


There could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he told the BBC.


On Tuesday, Annan's top envoy to Iraq, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, said the security situation will be the overriding factor in determining how many U.N. international staffers can return to Iraq. There is now a ceiling of 35 U.N. staff in the country.


Qazi spoke Tuesday at a Security Council meeting called to discuss Annan's latest report on Iraq, which warned that violence could make it more difficult to create the conditions for successful elections. Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has said he is determined to hold the election by Jan. 31.


The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (news - web sites), John Danforth, all but ruled out any delay beyond the Jan. 31 deadline for elections in Iraq's interim constitution.


"Let there be no doubt: we are committed to this timetable," he told council members Tuesday.

The UN Died 3 years ago and just has not realized it.

Koffi and his henchmen should be sent to Iraq to explain in court how they were taking money from Sadam.

AM - once in while, you actually seem to make sense :p

-----------------------------------------------------------

WOW!

I'm impressed Aunty M!

Once in a while you step up to the plate and hit 'it' WAY OUT OF THE PARK!

You're absolutely right, Aunty.

However, Annan was talking about Iraq, and we all know the Iraq war is not about defending ourselves.

Notice the Security Council didn't have a problem with us going into Afghanistan; then we were defending ourselves through retribution.

I'm with Aunty 100% on this one.

We may or may not have used the most wisdom in deciding on taking action against the Iraqi regime, but ielding that power to the UN would be abhorrent.

AM,

Why should Iran be subject to UN nuclear inspection teams, then?

If you expect other countries to abide by UN resolutions (like Hussein in Iraq for instance), then why should we get a free pass, so to speak?

The UN isn't going to stop the US from protecting itself.......but that's not what's happening in Iraq, is it? We went after Hussein partly because..........now get this.....he wouldn't abide by the UN Security Council's resolutions.

The irony isn't lost on me.

There's no doubt that the UN has become an unaffective group that is bogged down by each representatives self interest and its inability to lead resolutions to world conficts, but we can't have it both ways. We can't use the charters of the UN only when it serves our interests and ignore them when they don't.

One thing you can say about Herber Walker Bush is that he was very careful not to cross that line.

The UN is a relic from a different day. We gave them 12 yeaers to do something. The day we stepped foot in Iraq was the day we said the UN is dead. We are not doing anything with the UN Re Iran but show the world what a joke it has become. While 10k people a month die in the Sudan the the UN fills out more paperwork. They should be put on trial for gross negligence and sumarily shut down.

Agree 100% with AM
YEAH

Point well taken. Sounds to me like the Cowboy code of the Wild Wild West or a Speghetti Western.
Just to bad the World isn't dumb down like Mayberry.

If Barney, I mean GW is re-elected we need to make sure that he has only one bullet because we can all now see how careless he is. Non of us wants a foot shot when it's our foot.

Here's the thing that pisses me off about this...

...you can't hold up as one of your top two main reasons for going to war 'they violated umpteen un resolutions'...

.and then in the very next breath say that what the UN thinks, says, votes on or does is moot.

That's asinine, and it's a black eye to our credibility as a nation.

Like it or not folks this is the age of globalization. The plain truth is that the UN and its predecessor were and still remain to a certain extent ahead of its time.

"Like it or not folks this is the age of globalization. The plain truth is that the UN and its predecessor were and still remain to a certain extent ahead of its time."

The UN only works if there is more than one super power . The fall of the soviet Union and the softening of China on capitalism killed the UN.