|
CNN’s Dobbs attacks Annan on Iraq
war legality
Sept. 21 — When UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan said in a Sept. 15 interview that he thought the US-led invasion
of Iraq was illegal, CNN’s Lou Dobbs was outraged, calling it “another
incredible outburst by Kofi Annan” (9/16/04). But Dobbs and his
CNN reporters neglected to pursue the most important aspect of the story:
Was Annan right?
In a BBC interview, Annan said the war was “not in conformity with
the Security Council, with the UN charter.” When asked, “It
was illegal?,” Annan replied: “Yes, if you wish,” adding:
“I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter;
from our point of view and from the Charter point of view, it was illegal.”
This did not sit well with Dobbs, whose Sept. 16 report began: “Outrage
and anger today after an astonishing statement about Iraq by UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan. Annan said the United States-led invasion of Iraq
was illegal.”
Dobbs reported that “US allies Britain and Australia immediately
rejected Annan’s assertion. President Bush said he has no regrets
about ordering the invasion.” CNN correspondent Kitty Pilgrim’s
segment quoted the US ambassador to the United Nations, the Australian
Prime Minister, a representative from the conservative Hoover Institute,
and Edward Walker from the Middle East Institute, who said, “I
don’t understand quite what he means by legal.”
After Pilgrim’s report, Dobbs continued by referring to Annan’s
“bizarre statement” and lamenting “the interference that
was being run over the course of the past two years, in point of fact,
by the Germans and the French and now the French in Iran, the Chinese
in the Sudan— is, in fact, the United Nations paralyzed?”
Pilgrim responded by saying that “it certainly doesn’t seem
to be able to move forward on certain issues. In Iraq, it seems like
revisionist policy to go back to this issue in the UN today. It seems
to have some trouble moving forward on many issues.”
Whether or not looking back two years to the origins of an increasingly
violent situation is “revisionist policy” is debatable. The
more important question journalistically would be whether or not Annan’s
comments accurately reflect international law. CNN’s Lou Dobbs
Tonight, however, didn’t bother to interview international law
experts about the matter. If they had, they may have found that, as
the Washington Times put it (3/21/03), “Legal experts, however,
are divided on the war’s legality, with many saying that the existing
UN resolutions do not go as far as to authorize the use of force.”
A few days earlier, the Los Angeles Times (3/18/03) included comments
from several international law experts who thought the war violated
international law.
Many legal experts contend that the United Nations resolutions regarding
Iraq did not give the US and its allies the power to initiate war without
further action from the Security Council. And the UN Charter does lay
out specific conditions for hostile action; as Article 39 states, “The
Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the
peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations,
or decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or restore international
peace and security.” The charter authorizes the use of force only
if sanctioned by the Security Council, or if a country is attacked or
threatened with imminent attack (Article 51): “Nothing in the present
Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United
Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security.”
But without even referring to the UN Charter or other standards of international
law, CNN continued the discussion the following night ( 9/17/04) as
guest anchor Kitty Pilgrim called Annan’s statement “outrageous,”
then added: “More controversy tonight after Kofi Annan says the
war in Iraq is illegal. Critics say he is encouraging this country’s
enemies and putting American troops’ lives at risk.” The only
“critic” offered by CNN was Nile Gardiner of the right-wing
Heritage Foundation.
For the record, Annan would certainly not be the first person to make
such “outrageous” comments. In fact, last year the prominent
neoconservative hawk Richard Perle, who serves on the Pentagon’s
Defense Policy Board, indicated that he thought that the invasion violated
international law (Guardian, 11/20/03), which Perle said “would
have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone.” Perle argued that
French intransigence left the US with “no practical mechanism consistent
with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein,” and
therefore, Perle said, “I think in this case international law
stood in the way of doing the right thing.”
Perle’s sentiments toward international law were in a sense echoed
by George W. Bush, who mocked a question about the legality of excluding
countries like Germany and France from Iraq’s reconstruction (12/11/03):
“International law? I’d better call my lawyer.” Bush’s
comments elicited little criticism, and merited only a passing mention
on Lou Dobbs Tonight. Now that Annan has brought up a substantive claim
about the war’s legal basis, CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight considers
these statements of fact “outrageous.”
Source: FAIR
Britain to media: keep power, sewage
plants secret
By Richard Norton-Taylor
Sept. 25— Newspaper editors and television
producers are to be asked to avoid referring to such visible installations
as sewage works and power stations on the grounds they are potential
targets for terrorists.
The request has been prompted by growing anxiety in parts of Whitehall,
notably the Home Office, concerned not least by a spate of drama documentaries
about terrorist attacks.
After intense argument about whether the media should disclose the whereabouts
of conspicuous locations — and their vulnerability — new media
guidelines are being drawn up by the defense, press and broadcasting
advisory committee which operates a system of voluntary self-censorship.
The committee will soon extend the reach of D notice number 4 which
now concentrates on nuclear weapons and intelligence facilities, according
to emergency planning officers.
It will be amended to cover a much wider range of “sensitive sites,”
including what Whitehall calls Britain’s “critical national
infrastructure,” or CNI. It covers telecommunications, energy,
transport and water.
Two years ago MI5 drew up a list of more than 300 possible terrorist
targets, including oil refineries, the country’s 15 nuclear power
stations, the main National Grid sites, petrochemical facilities, and
the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire as well
as such obvious high-profile targets as the House of Commons.
This summer MI5 warned businesses that terrorists were increasingly
looking at “soft” targets such as social and retail venues,
tourist sites and transport networks.
It offered sensible practical advice about precautions that public authorities
and private companies should take in light of an increased terrorist
threat.
Telling the media what to report — or rather not report —
about buildings and locations whose functions are visible to the naked
eye or described on maps is quite another matter, some senior officials
concede.
One issue raised behind the scenes in Whitehall was whether the media
should be dissuaded, not only from describing the locations of sensitive
sites but from reporting any vulnerability in their defenses.
The Home Office suggested that the media should not be allowed to report
security lapses as a series of programs and articles have recently done.
The argument appears to be that this would only help terrorists. The
contrary argument is that such stories alert the authorities to gaps
in security precisely so that they can make locations less vulnerable.
Those in the latter camp seem to have won the battle, on the grounds
that if the media are going to pay any attention to D notice guidelines,
then they may as well be as reasonable as possible.
It begs the question whether the D notice system is viable in the first
place.
Few would want to put lives at risk, whether or not this was the subject
of one of the committee’s guidelines.
However, even the existing D notice No 4 refers to the need to seek
official advice before disclosing, for example, “sites associated
with the nuclear weapons program,” or “high security MoD and
military sites associated with intelligence and other sensitive activities.”
Such sites are well known and many have been photographed, frequently.
Recently the D notice committee — which consists of senior Whitehall
figures and media representatives — agreed that the government
would say more about the activities of Britain’s special forces.
The agreement has been ignored by the MoD.
Source: Guardian (UK)
|
