As it did at the time, it seems to me that if Pres. Bush felt he had legal authority to attack Iraq, he would not have subjected himself to a "humiliating" defeat - in the words of his own Secretary of State - in a UN Security Council vote on a war-making resolution.

Tuesday 4 March 2003

With other nations' opposition hardening, the White House left open the possibility Tuesday that it would not seek a United Nations vote on its war-making resolution if the measure was clearly headed for defeat.

U.S. troop strength in the Persian Gulf neared 300,000, and President Bush and his advisers were looking beyond the diplomatic showdown in the U.N. to make plans for a public relations buildup to potential war with Iraq.

One option under serious consideration was Bush giving Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein a final ultimatum, perhaps with a short-term deadline, in an address next week, two senior White House officials said.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, stressed that a variety of options are on the table and all depend on the outcome of a U.N. Security Council debate on the U.S.-backed war resolution. In a new blow, Russia's top diplomat said Moscow may use its veto against the measure.

Even without a veto from Russia, China or France, the United States still doesn't have the nine votes needed to win approval of the resolution, according to both supporters and opponents. Many undecided council members are looking for a compromise.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an interview with RTL television of Germany, said that early next week U.S. leaders would "make a judgment on whether it's time to put the resolution up to a vote."

At the White House, spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "The vote is desirable. It is not necessary."

Advisors Warn Bush He Faces "Humiliating" Defeat on UN Resolution

Also: U.S., Britain, Spain Challenge U.N. on Iraq (Some "coalition")

Moving along, I'll see your statement from the UN Secretary General, and raise you:

"Until now it has been understood that when states go beyond (self-defense), and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

"Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an 'armed attack' with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group. Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, states have the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other states, and even while weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still being developed.

"According to this argument, states are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council. Instead, they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions.

"This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last fifty-eight years ... if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification.

Annan Trounces Bush at UN

"...unilateral and lawless use of force..."

S