Kofi votes Kerry

By CASPAR WEINBERGER, The Wall Street Journal

Sep 20, 2004 — For those who, like John Kerry, believe that the proper foreign-policy course in Iraq and elsewhere is to turn everything over to the United Nations, events of the last week provided some highly dubious fodder:

First, despite Colin Powell’s correct description of the killings of African Muslims in the Darfur region of Sudan as “genocide,” the U.N. did not leap into action.

In fact, the Security Council was mired in a semantic argument as to whether a U.S.-proposed resolution could be interpreted as threatening sanctions against Sudan. The first answer was “no” to the resolution. China, mindful of its trade with Sudan, refused the original wording. Bear in mind that this is the same Council which, in the midst of the Darfur atrocities, reappointed Sudan to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Sudan’s term on this oddly named commission runs until 2007, so Darfur should not raise its expectations of U.N. help anytime soon, despite the fact that the Security Council finally did pass a resolution “threatening” oil sanctions.

Second, the absurdity of the Kerry solution of turning over to the U.N. matters too difficult for his political staff to handle was fully unveiled last week when Kofi Annan, secretary general of the U.N., unilaterally declared that U.S. actions in freeing the world of Saddam Hussein were “illegal.”

I do not recall any vote in the Security Council, even assuming it could pull itself together, that we had been behaving illegally in Iraq. Nor does Mr. Annan mention any U.N. vote, or any other authority, for his statement to the BBC that, from the “from our point of view and from the [U.N.] Charter point of view, [U.S. action] was illegal.” Then Mr. Annan, apparently determined to be as unhelpful as possible, added that it was “unlikely that Iraq would be able to hold credible elections as planned in January 2005, if security conditions continue as they are.”

Iraq is indeed less likely to have credible elections if the head of the U.N. brands the actions that made possible any elections as “illegal.”

The key fact here is not that Mr. Annan is quite wrong about U.S. actions, “illegal” or not, under the U.N. Charter. He might be better employed reading the Charter, especially that bit in Art. 51 about member-states having the right to defend themselves. He might also recall the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The key fact to remember is that Mr. Annan heads an organization to which presidential candidate Kerry would, if he means what he says, turn over management of such difficult problems as defending ourselves or deterring more terrorist attacks.

Those voters who declare themselves to poll-takers as “undecided” or “for Kerry” should keep in mind our country’s future safety and security — and keep in mind as well the Kerry proposal to turn over our ability to realize that future safety and security to the U.N., whose head has apparently already decided that what we are doing is “illegal.” Put another way, if Kofi Annan had a vote on Nov. 2, which way would he vote? Now ask yourself the simple follow-up question, Which way should I vote?

Mr. Weinberger was secretary of defense under President Reagan.