Annan Urges U.S. Not to Go It Alone Against Iraq

On the eve of President Bush’s address to the United Nations, Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a strong warning Wednesday that the U.S. should not take military action against Iraq without the world body’s approval.

“When states decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations,” said a text released Wednesday for an address Annan will give today before the president speaks.

“Member states attach fundamental importance to such legitimacy and to the international rule of law,” he added.

Though softened by diplomatic language, and matched with a warning to Iraq, Annan’s message is clear: If the U.S. goes it alone, it will undermine the international rule of law and risk leaving the Persian Gulf region in chaos.

The speech’s stern language and early distribution set the stage for the latest round of a diplomatic drama between the Bush administration and the U.N. Senior U.N. officials said the remarks, which Annan also gave to Bush on Wednesday, were made available so they would receive equal attention to the president’s speech to the General Assembly today.

The administration has indicated that, if need be, it will act against Iraq without the support of the international community.

In the text released Wednesday, Annan said: “For any one state--large or small--choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience. It has consequences far beyond the immediate context.”

He also said: “The more a country makes use of multilateral institutions ... the more others will trust and respect it and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership.”

Annan included a warning to Iraq that it was time to toe the line. “I urge Iraq to comply with its obligations--for the sake of its own people and for the sake of world order. If Iraq’s defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities.”

The world body has long held a tricky position in the pantheon of U.S. foreign policy. U.N. officials believe that American governments often use the U.N. as a surrogate when it is convenient and as a scapegoat when things go wrong.

Analysts said the fact that Bush feels compelled to make his case for taking action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on the global stage shows that this time, at least, Washington thinks it needs to be a team player.

“It’s a question of necessity more than choice,” said Edward C. Luck, director of the Center on International Organization at Columbia University. “Getting international support reinforces the possibility of getting domestic support and vice versa. The U.N. happens to be the arena where it all comes together.”

Diplomats are relieved that Bush seems to be heeding a chorus of international warnings that he not skirt the U.N.

“There was a consistent message from all sides, from his father’s former advisors to leaders across Europe and the Middle East,” said William H. Luers, president of the United Nations Assn. of the United States, an independent think tank. “Since Iraq is unfinished U.N. business anyway, if you don’t at least make an effort to address the U.N. role, it would be missing a big opportunity to engage a broad group of nations.

“If we have U.N. backing, it also becomes the U.N.’s problem,” Luers said. “It’s not the U.S. versus Saddam Hussein; it’s him against his neighbors.”

The U.S. doesn’t need the Security Council’s blessing to attack Iraq. According to the U.N. resolution that followed Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the war is not over until the U.N. verifies that Hussein’s government has destroyed all weapons of mass destruction.

The United States and Britain used this interpretation as the basis for an airstrike in 1998 after Hussein refused to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. By then, the international coalition that initially banded against Iraq was so fragmented, the U.S. feared that the Security Council would reject a punitive attack if asked.

Nonetheless, the U.S. would prefer having the U.N.’s blessing.

Though Bush today plans to present evidence of Iraq’s “decade of defiance” showing that Baghdad has breached almost all its international obligations, the president won’t propose a new U.N. resolution, his aides say. That will probably fall to Britain, Washington’s major supporter on the Security Council. Behind the scenes, Bush will send top U.S. officials to lobby more reluctant council members to join the effort--or at least not block it--while he would reserve the right to back away from any resolution that constrains U.S. objectives.

So what role can the Security Council play?

The 15-member council largely agrees that the U.N.’s Iraq policy needs to be redefined to end Hussein’s evasive tactics. Weapons inspectors haven’t been allowed in the country since they left ahead of the 1998 airstrike, but even when they were there, their demands for Iraq to surrender known weapons materiel had all the force of parking tickets, said one former inspector.

Most council members would agree that a deadline should be set for Iraq’s allowing weapons inspectors to return and stronger penalties if Hussein doesn’t allow the monitors unfettered access to all suspect sites. But the sticking point is how far the U.N. is willing to go.

Russia and China, both veto-wielding permanent members of the council, want to find a compromise that avoids the use of military force, which they believe will destabilize the region--not to mention their economic interests in Iraq.

One idea proposed by the Carnegie Foundation in Washington and reportedly being floated among Bush advisors is “coercive inspections,” or backing monitors with armed forces who could shoot their way in if access to a suspect site is blocked. But the weapons inspectors themselves aren’t keen on the idea.

The Security Council was careful while drafting the original resolution more than a decade ago to make sure monitors remained unarmed for their own protection, said Ewen Buchanan of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which trains the inspectors. They don’t want to get caught in a shootout or be taken hostage and used as human shields.

For a new resolution to pass, there must be nine votes in favor and no veto from any of the five permanent members, which also include the U.S., Britain and France.

“I expect a new resolution, not by the end of the month but in the coming weeks,” said Solomon Passy, the foreign minister of Bulgaria, which holds the Security Council’s rotating presidency. “If we can’t reach consensus, we can at least reach a big majority on the resolution on Iraq.”

Even so, Bush advisors have made it clear that they don’t have much faith that a new resolution or inspection regime will persuade Iraq to comply.

“There have been plenty of ultimatums” given to the Iraqis, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said on CNN this week. What will occupy the Security Council in the coming weeks is whether to give the go-ahead to the U.S. to use military force if Hussein resists efforts to determine whether he possesses weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. To do that with the cover of international approval, the U.S. and council allies may push the Iraqi leader to compromise in ways he has been unwilling to in the past, such as requiring access to “sensitive sites” such as Hussein’s many presidential palaces as well as mosques that inspectors were not allowed to enter.

The biggest fear among diplomats, though, is that the U.S. is merely seeking U.N. approval to attack Iraq, without regard to the uproar it would cause Iraq’s neighbors, who fear retaliation or loss of trade with Iraq if they support an invasion. How far do U.S. plans go? Annan wondered aloud earlier this week.

“I know many people are worried about unexpected consequences, and the question is--the morning after,” the secretary-general said. “What sort of Iraq do we wake up to after the bombing, and what happens in the region? What impact could it have? These are questions leaders I have spoken to have posed.”