[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 116 (Thursday, September 23, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S9543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ``ILLEGAL'' WAR AND THE RULE OF LAW

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to watch Kofi Annan, 
the United Nations Secretary General, address the U.N. delegates. I 
wish he had seen what we all witnessed a few minutes ago when the great 
Prime Minister Allawi from Iraq gave one of the best messages I have 
ever heard to a joint meeting.
  Much has been made about the Secretary General's remarks in an 
interview last week in which he called the war in Iraq ``illegal.'' 
Several of my colleagues, including Senator Coleman, have addressed 
this issue on the Senate floor, so I will not belabor the point. It is 
not an illegal war.
  I would like to reemphasize that the liberation of Iraq was carried 
out to enforce Security Council resolutions. These were the serious 
consequences with which Saddam was threatened if he continued his 
illegal acts--his illegal acts.
  Secretary General Annan's remarks seem to be based on the idea that 
without explicit Security Council permission, any military action is 
illegal under international law.
  I remind my colleagues that in 1999, NATO forces had been conducting 
air operations in Kosovo for 72 days before the U.N. Security Council 
passed a resolution granting its blessings. I have not heard any 
condemnation of the NATO's action as being illegal.
  Secretary General Annan's address centered on the rule of law. I want 
to read a brief excerpt of what he said. He said:

       Yet today the rule of law is at risk around the world. 
     Again and again, we see fundamental laws shamelessly 
     disregarded--those that ordain respect for innocent life, for 
     civilians, for the vulnerable--especially children.
       To mention only a few flagrant and topical examples: In 
     Iraq, we see civilians massacred in cold blood, while relief 
     workers, journalists and other noncombatants are taken 
     hostage and put to death in the most barbarous fashion. At 
     the same time, we have seen Iraqi prisoners disgracefully 
     abused.

  That is what the Secretary General said.
  I am not going to suggest that the abuses of Abu Ghraib prison were 
not wrong. They were wrong. I will say more about that in a minute.
  My point is the Secretary General, by lumping these two things 
together, has put terrorists and insurgents on the same level as 
America. This is a fundamental difference between a nation that 
recognizes the rule of law and punishes its own citizens if they 
violate it, and groups of outlaws whose charter is written in blood and 
whose tactics solely rely on violations of the rule of law. The people 
of the United States should know this, and so should the Secretary 
General.

  The instances of prisoner abuse that have received so much media 
attention during the past few months were violations of these 
standards. A handful of the violators were already being punished. It 
was already taking place long before the media frenzy took place.
  America had to deal with Americans violating the rule of law, and it 
has done so head on. But I suggest the United Nations itself is not 
above the rule of law. We are just now beginning to learn how the 
United Nations allowed the U.N. Oil for Food Program to degenerate into 
little more than another source of income for Saddam Hussein's bloody 
regime.
  The U.N. response to allegations of wrongdoing has been half-hearted 
at best. Is this the rule of law trumpeted by the Secretary General? 
Let's be clear. A country's adhering to the rule of law does not mean 
that its citizens will not do bad things. We must do everything we can 
to prevent such occurrences, but despite our best efforts or the best 
efforts in any country, it is not going to be totally successful.
  People are, well, only human. We know that. The rule of law is borne 
out in identifying, condemning, and punishing those who violate the 
standards on which we all agree. This is exactly what we do in America.
  The U.N. states a commitment to the rule of law. We will continue to 
work with other nations in this international forum to effect change 
for the better. But I and many of my colleagues share skepticism as to 
whether the U.N. can effectively realize its noble goals. If the past 
is any indication, we can expect a lot of talk and very little action.
  In Iraq, we are fulfilling, to quote the Secretary General, ``our 
responsibility to protect innocent civilians from genocide, crimes 
against humanity, and war crimes.'' If this is not the rule of law, I 
would like to know what it is.
  All the criticisms the Secretary General was aiming at the United 
States were refuted directly or indirectly by Iraqi Prime Minister 
Allawi when he spoke to our joint meeting. I am overwhelmed by it, and 
certainly hope the Secretary General also heard his greatly, profound 
remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I have a brief inquiry. My understanding 
is that with the unanimous consent agreement, I will now have longer 
than 10 minutes, if I need it, to speak in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________