DEALING WITH
IRAQ The Charter of the United Nations is categorical. "In order to ensure prompt
and effective action by the United Nations," it confers on the Security Council
"primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security." That responsibility can seldom have weighed more heavily on the
members of the council than it does this week. Within the next day or two, they
have to make a momentous choice.
The context of that choice is an issue whose importance is by no means
confined to Iraq: the threat posed to all humanity by weapons of mass
destruction. The whole international community needs to act together to curb the
proliferation of these terrible weapons, wherever it may be happening.
But the immediate and most urgent aspect of that task is to ensure that Iraq
no longer has such weapons. Why? Because Iraq has actually used them in the
past, and because it has twice, under its present leadership, committed
aggression against its neighbors--against Iran in 1980, and against Kuwait in
1990.
That is why the Security Council is determined to disarm Iraq of these
weapons, and has passed successive resolutions since 1991 requiring Iraq to
disarm.
All over the world, people want to see this crisis resolved peacefully. They
are alarmed about the great human suffering that war always causes, whether it
is long or short. And they are apprehensive about the longer-term consequences
that this particular war might have.
They fear that it will lead to regional instability and economic crises; and
that it may--as war so often does--have unintended consequences that produce new
dangers. Will it make the fight against terrorism, or the search for peace
between Israelis and Palestinians, even harder? Will it sow deep divisions
between nations and peoples of different faiths? Will it compromise our ability
to work together in addressing other common concerns in the future?
Sometimes it may be necessary to use force to deal with threats to the
peace--and the charter makes provision for that. But war must always be a last
resort. It should be used only when every reasonable alternative has been
tried--in the present case, only if we are sure that every peaceful means of
achieving Iraq's disarmament has been exhausted. The United Nations, founded to
"save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," has a duty to search for
a peaceful solution until the last possible moment.
Has that moment arrived? That is the decision that the members of the
Security Council now face. It is a grave decision indeed. If they fail to agree
on a common position, and some of them then take action without the council's
authority, the legitimacy of that action will be widely questioned, and it will
not gain the political support needed to ensure its long-term success, after its
military phase.
If, on the other hand, the members of the council can come together, even at
this late hour, and ensure compliance with their earlier resolutions by agreeing
on a common course of action, then the council's authority will be enhanced, and
the world will be a safer place.
Let's remember that the crisis in Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. What
happens there will have a profound impact on other issues of great importance.
The broader our consensus on how to deal with Iraq, the better the chance that
we can come together again and deal effectively with other burning conflicts in
the world, starting with the one between Israelis and Palestinians. We all know
that only a just resolution of that conflict can bring any real hope of lasting
stability in the region.
Beyond the Middle East, the success or failure of the international community
in dealing with Iraq will crucially affect its ability to deal with the no less
worrying developments on the Korean peninsula. And it will affect our work to
resolve the conflicts that are causing so much suffering in Africa, setting back
the prospects for stability and development that that continent so badly needs.
All around the world these last few months, we have seen what an immense
significance not only states, but their peoples, attach to the legitimacy
provided by the U.N., and by the Security Council, as the common framework for
securing peace. As they approach their momentous decision this week, I hope the
members of the Council will be mindful of this sacred trust that the world's
peoples have placed in them, and will show themselves worthy of it.
Mr. Annan is secretary-general of the U.N.
Keep the U.N.
United
Will the Security
Council live up to its responsibility?
BY KOFI A. ANNAN
Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:01 a.m.
EST
Title: Message
