Better late than never, I suppose
Quote of note:
Richard Grenell, a spokesman to the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said the Bush administration will withhold comment on the report until it is formally released Thursday. "We will review this report with an eye towards how, if at all, the recommendations will improve the workings of the Security Council."
U.N. Panel Rejects Bush Stance on Military Action
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 1, 2004; Page A15
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30 -- An influential U.N.-appointed panel challenged the Bush administration's right to use military force against an enemy that does not pose an imminent military threat. The 16-member panel, which was appointed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said in a long-awaited report that only the U.N. Security Council has the legal standing to authorize such a "preventive war."
The panel's findings reflect persistent international unease over the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year without an explicit council endorsement, noting that "there is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power, or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower." It also recommends the establishment of five guidelines that must be met before force can be legitimately used -- including a determination that force is used as a last resort and that the threat is serious.
If there are good arguments for preventive military action, with good evidence to support them, they should be put to the Security Council," the report said. But "in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk of the global order . . . is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action . . . to be accepted."
