Kofi Annan says exPM Tony Blair could have stopped the Iraq war
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was the only person capable of turning George Bush against the 2003 Iraq invasion, ex-United Nations chief Kofi Annan claimed in an interview published Saturday.
Annan argued in an interview published in The Times newspaper that Blair could have changed Bush's mind because of the special relationship between the two nations and the two leaders.
Annan said he often had contemplated what might have happened if “Blair had said 'George, this is where we part company. You're on your own',” following the failure to secure a second UN resolution.
“I really think it could have stopped the war,” added the Nobel peace laureate. Annan was UN secretary general at the time of the crisis.
A first Security Council resolution, which offered Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations passed unanimously in November 2002.
But a second resolution proposed by the US, Britain, and Spain in 2003 that called for action to be taken against Saddam Hussain's regime was withdrawn when it became clear it would be vetoed. The Latin American representatives as non permanent members of the Security Council at the time, Chile and Mexico, were intensely and personally lobbied but refused point blank their support.
The US decided that the resolution was not needed before military action could lawfully take place, and the invasion commenced on March 20. The invasion triggered eight years of sectarian conflict in Iraq, resulting in more than 100,000 civilian deaths.
Annan rejected suggestions that his resignation, or that of then US secretary of state Colin Powell, would have altered the course of history.
And he dismissed Archbishop Desmond Tutu's call for Bush and Blair to be put on trial at the International Criminal Court. Both had been democratically elected, he said, and were only acting in their national interests.
Annan was the UN Arab League envoy to Syria from February until August, but resigned after his peace plan failed to prevent further fighting between rebels and forces loyal to President Bashar Al-Assad.
The diplomat told the Times that Assad had to go, arguing that the leader had lost all legitimacy. Annan gave the interview to mark the launch of his memoirs: ”Interventions - a Life in War and Peace”.
Suggested Stories
-
Jun 14th 2013
Isle of Man hits back at G8 over tax evasion and questions secrecy of UK and US banks
-
Jun 12th 2013
Assange recommends whistleblower Snowden seek refuge in Latinamerica
-
Jun 19th 2013
Malvinas C24 Argentina petitioners: Maria Angelia Vernet and Alejandro Betts
-
Jun 19th 2013
India-Argentina pledge to improve trade; Timerman thanks Delhi support on Malvinas dispute
14 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Also, George Bush told TB that if it was causing too much domestic trouble that the US would go it alone. He gave TB every opportunity of not going ahead. TB thought it would give him his place in history - something he was obsessive about for his entire term in office - and it did! But for all the wrong reasons. JMO
Annan, Did you call TB to tell him exactly what you are saing now?
No, You didn't. That makes you a complece.
Second. Did you forget Desert Storm? Iraq Threats did not start with Bush 43. You could stop the masacer in Syria, but you didn't, you preferred to run away. The Iraquis replaced one dictator for thousands of them. Geprge Bush did opened the Iraq Pandora's box. Without him it would have happened anyway. Isn't Syria a good enough proof?
I love Big generals after the war.
So wait, the US/UK ignored the will of the UN then? But wait... according to the precious brits and americans on this internet sight, they always act and follow any resolutions or agree not to take action outside resolutionsm, because they respect the UN. They kept telling me it is Argentina that never follows UN resolutions.
Don't tell me the Anglos were caught LYING again? What else is new?
This news article will be my response now on every time a loutish Brit comes up with the line “the UK abides by UN resolutions....”
Did it?
“The US/UK decided that the resolution was not needed before military action could lawfully take place, and the invasion commenced on March 20”
bunch of rogue lawless nations... and the best part is that it was no junta that violated the UN, it was “democratically elected” governments!
And to top all off, the two ex-leaders are chilling under millionaire public pensions when they commited crimes against humanity.
That's why no one on Earth respects these two countries.
Quote of the year. Thank you for your elucidating proof of how garbage you and your country trully are.
So when it comes to the US/UK one has to pass resolutions STOPPING YOU from a war of agression.
Quote of the year, it sums up Anglo logic to the dot and tee.
TTT, that's pretty close to the truth, yes.
Why? Looking for a fight? ¬_¬
Ditto for Argentina.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!