To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » David Peterson's Blog » "In Larger Freedom" VII

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

Recent Peterson Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

"In Larger Freedom" VII

By David Peterson at Mar 29, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
That the Secretary-General's In Larger Freedom document could have broached one of the crucial topics that it does, under III.E, "Use of force," namely, the need for a Security Council resolution to establish binding principles that cover "when and how force can be used to defend international peace and security" (pars. 122-126), shows us something. Exactly what it shows us is another matter. As yet undetermined. And open to debate. Tomorrow, the Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program (a.k.a. the Volcker Committee) will release the second of its Interim Reports into the old UN program from which it takes its name. At worst, the Volcker Committee is expected to "fault both Mr. Annan for his management practices and his son, who it will say was paid nearly $400,000 between 1996 and 2004 by Cotecna Inspection Services, the Swiss-based company that had a contract to monitor the humanitarian goods that Iraq bought under the $65 billion program," the New York Times reported on Saturday, following up a Wall Street Journal report on Friday, itself following up a Financial Times report two days before. Nevertheless. In anticipation, today's newspapers have carried dire warnings that a "palpable atmosphere of dread has overtaken the UN headquarters," as "Kofi Annan's reputation, as well as his ability to carry on as United Nations secretary general, will be on the line tomorrow," here quoting The Independent. "Officials hope the report will exonerate the secretary general of direct wrongdoing," The Independent's report continues. But the "suggestion even of managerial incompetence or blindness to nepotism on the part of Mr Annan will take a toll on him at a time when he is already beleaguered by other scandals and will almost certainly prompt new calls for his resignation." Of course, what the actual findings of the Volcker Committee's second Interim Report turn out to be, and how these findings play out, ultimately, around the centers of world power---and within one power in particular---also are separate matters. To share just one example with you: The U.S.-based Heritage Foundation, a strong advocate of unbridled American Power and one of the stalwarts behind the current regime in the White House, maintains what it bills as a "research project" dedicated to the study of International Organizations---how to make them more subservient to American Power, to be honest about it, and how to undermine them if they aren't. As you may have guessed, a major part of this project covers the United Nations. (Including a glowing commentary on how the White House's nominee to be the next UN Ambassador, John R. Bolton, "will be good for the UN"!) Looking over Heritage's UN-related papers, we find Heritage attacking Kofi Annan over his statement in September 2004 that the American invasion of Iraq was "illegal" as well as his early November, 2004 warning that the then-imminent U.S. assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah should respect the laws of war; we also find Heritage attacking Kofi Annan for allegedly "meddling" in the American presidential election, and trying to "influence" its outcome; and we find Heritage calling on Kofi Annan to resign as well as for the White House to give him a boot out the door. What's more, we find Heritage using the various inquiries into the UN Oil-for-Food Program or the conduct of the UN Peacekeeping Mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo or the fact that the UN has never fielded a peacekeeping force for the Darfur states of the western Sudan to cast aspersions on the viability of the United Nations as an organization. But not to cast aspersions on the conduct of the UN's principal Member States, note well. Least of all to cast aspersions on the conduct of Heritage's favorite state. But no matter what the Volcker Committee reports tomorrow---and I'm confident that over the course of the past week, the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, and New York Times already have reported the worst of it---certain quarters in the States are going to play up the findings as damning for the Secretary-General and daming for the United Nations---and damning for the various proposals outlined in the Secretary-General's document. And if In Larger Freedom puts forth one single proposal for which the Heritage Foundation-slash-Bush Administration-slash-anti-multilateral zealots of American Power are the most desperate to kill, surely it is the call for a UN resolution governing when and how force can be used to defend international peace and security. "In recent years," the Annan document notes, "this issue has deeply divided Member States." The document continues (excerpting Par. 122 and Par. 126):
They have disagreed about whether States have the right to use military force pre-emptively, to defend themselves against imminent threats; whether they have the right to use it preventively to defend themselves against latent or non-imminent threats; and whether they have the right — or perhaps the obligation — to use it protectively to rescue the citizens of other States from genocide or comparable crimes. ............ When considering whether to authorize or endorse the use of military force, the Council should come to a common view on how to weigh the seriousness of the threat; the proper purpose of the proposed military action; whether means short of the use of force might plausibly succeed in stopping the threat; whether the military option is proportional to the threat at hand; and whether there is a reasonable chance of success. By undertaking to make the case for military action in this way, the Council would add transparency to its deliberations and make its decisions more likely to be respected, by both Governments and world public opinion. I therefore recommend that the Security Council adopt a resolution setting out these principles and expressing its intention to be guided by them when deciding whether to authorize or mandate the use of force.
Officially, In Larger Freedom was released on Monday, March 21---a day which included an address by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly. The very same day, Adam Ereli, the Deputy Spokesman of the U.S. Department of State, was asked whether he could "say anything at all about the proposal for some sort of Security Council resolution on the use of force and preemptive action." Ereli responded (March 21):
Our general feeling on the subject of a resolution is that, frankly, we're skeptical that any kind of resolution on the use of force would be helpful. Certainly, we'd want to discuss it further with others. The Secretary General's report makes it clear that states don't need to wait until they're actually attacked in order to use force and self-defense. This is a fundamental element of the charter, and in our view, that's -- the charter deals with the issue sufficiently.
An immediate follow-up question asked whether he was "reluctant to sign on to such a resolution because [he thought] it'll tie U.S. hands if it needs to take preemptive action?" To this, Ereli responded that
As a general matter, what I would tell you is that it's -- that the charter and the Secretary General have made clear that anticipatory self-defense is something that is part of the UN system, is accepted by the UN system, and therefore further actions in terms of a resolution, I think, would have to be looked at carefully to see what they added and what positive contribution they could make.
Case closed. What the meager 425 words (slightly less, actually) that the text of In Larger Freedom devotes to this topic shows us, I think, is this: These days, the postwar cornerstone of the United Nations, the peoples of this world uniting to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," with each Member State surrendering to a multilateral, rule-governed body that part of its sovereignty which deals with the right to wage war, is so radical an idea that it can only be spoken of in whispers, lest the wrong somebody overhear. As of March, 2005, we are left with a United Nations in which two of the permanent, veto-wielding members of the very organ granted the “primary responsibility” by its Charter for the “maintenance of international peace and security” not only were able to launch a war of aggression two years earlier, in direct violation of the Charter, and with nothing more than the sheer pretext of self-defense to hide behind---but there is nothing the United Nations or anyone else can do about it. Not then. Not now. Not six months hence, when the UN's 60th session convenes in New York City. All in all, a pretty impressive display of power, I think. But also dangerous. And not likely to "transform the United Nations into the effective instrument for preventing conflict that it was always meant to be."
An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-Keeping (A/47/277-S/24111), Report of the Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali et al., June, 1992 An Agenda for Development (A/48/935), Report of the Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali et al., May, 1994 Supplement to An Agenda for Peace, (A/50/60 - S/1995/1), Report of the Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali et al., January, 1995 (Please note that all three of these documents are electronically archived by the United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.) The Responsibility To Protect, Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun et al., September, 2001 (For the HTML version of the same.) United Nations Millennium Declaration (A/55/L.2), UN General Assembly, September 8, 2000 "We the Peoples": The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, Kofi A. Annan et al., United Nation, 2000 UN Millennium Development Goals (Overview with links) UN Millennium Project (Homepage) A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, Anand Panyarachun et al., 2004 (For the complete PDF version of the same.) Investing in Development: A Practical Plan To Achieve the Millennium Development Goals, Jeffrey D. Sachs et al., 2005 (For the complete PDF version of the same.---Also see the accompanying Media Release.) In Larger Freedom: Towards Security, Development and Human Rights for All, Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for decisions by Heads of State and Government in September 2005 (A/59/2005), Kofi A. Annan et al., United Nations, 2005 (For the PDF version of the report.) "Cotecna link to Kojo Annan under scrutiny," Claudio Gatti, Financial Times, March 23, 2005 "Annan son received Dollars 300,000 in Cotecna payments," Claudio Gatti, Financial Times, March 23, 2005 "Panel To Criticize Annan for Lapses in UN's Oil-for-Food Program," Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2005 "Report Expected to Fault Kofi Annan's Role in Oil-for-Food Plan Payments to His Son," Warren Hoge and Judith Miller, New York Times, March 26, 2005 "Annan faces new calls for resignation over his son's role in UN oil-for-food scandal," Philip Sherwell, Sunday Telegraph, March 27, 2005 "Annan Fate To Be Sealed by Oil-for-Food Scandal Report," David Usborne, The Independent, March 28, 2005 "In Larger Freedom" I, March 20, 2005 "In Larger Freedom" II, March 21, 2005 "In Larger Freedom" III, March 21, 2005 "In Larger Freedom" IV, March 22, 2005 "In Larger Freedom" V, March 25, 2005 "In Larger Freedom" VI, March 26, 2005

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (17)

50

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By Peterson, David at Jul 16, 2005 20:20 PM
Friends: For the single most debased expression of what we don't ever want the United Nations to be, consider the following statement read on behalf of the Secretary-General by his Chief of Staff Mark Malloch Brown at last Monday's memorial in Potocari, near Srebrenica (SG/SM/9993):
As I wrote in my report in 1999, we made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality and non-violence which, however admirable, was unsuited to the conflict in Bosnia. That is why, as I also wrote, “the tragedy of Srebrenica will haunt our history forever”. ............ Our...most important duty, even while addressing the crimes of the past, is to prevent such systematic slaughter from recurring anywhere in the present and future. The world must equip itself to act collectively against genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The “responsibility to protect” must be given tangible meaning, not just rhetorical support.
Rather than advocate the institutional changes necessary to improve the Security Council's performance of its principal function, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security, and collectively deterring and countering wars of aggression (at least sticking to Ch. V and Ch. VII of the Charter of the United Nations), beginning with the elimination of Permanent Five status as well as absolute veto-power from all UN organs, this Secretary-General decries impartiality and non-violence! For yet another expression of this emerging UN rejection of the principles of impartiality and non-violence under the influence of the "responsibility to protect" rhetoric, also check out:
“The role of the Security Council in humanitarian crises" (S/PRST/2005/30)
Our world today faces the real threat that the current Security Council will be turned into a taker-of-sides and a wager of such wars . Not simply because one or more of the Permanent Five can bully enough of the others to steer the Security Council in this direction. (The only question being: Which from among a litany of previous cases stands out as the paradigmatic case in point?) But because a "reformed" Security Council---one that overcomes, once and for all, any ill-placed squeamishness about impartiality and non-violence---will have warmaking as its new principal function. So much for United Nations "reform." In Larger Freedom.... And all of that. This Secretary-General is a real bastard.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By Vekey, Tvekey at Mar 30, 2005 21:14 PM
This near paralytical division on terminology in the UN, cloaks the real division of strategy aims, on one side the US and a very few of its satelites, aiming for global full spectrum dominance, and the rest who resist it, and want to live in a multilateral environment. Sadly, this scenario is reminiscing the paralysis of the old League of Nations before the II. WW. when another unilateralist Great Power was stretching the limit of the established international order.

Reply this comment

Person

By Organum, Baby at Mar 30, 2005 15:49 PM
Jup ! I stand corrected. Sorry Frase :-)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By Organum, Baby at Mar 30, 2005 15:47 PM
Thanks Joe. Ill go read :-)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By Organum, Baby at Mar 30, 2005 15:39 PM
As to article 51. Attack is more than a frenche lefie-organisation. Its allso the opposite of defence

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By Organum, Baby at Mar 30, 2005 15:32 PM
Thats Rite ONN Dearest Fraser and Yakov. GOOD guys are termed freedomfighters and BAD guys are termed TERRORISTS ( Aka: muslim fundamentalist formerly known as bolshevik scum ) The white palace has a list of GOOD and BAD people and for a nominal fee you can subscribe. PS Terror is a french word that translates into utter fear. The use of fear as a weapon should be the definition. Thus not the bomb it self but the way it changes civilian society through the fear of further bombings PPS It is impossible to go to war against a consept.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By J, Big at Mar 30, 2005 05:12 AM
wow somehow i forgot all about iraq- Maybe while you're at it you can ask the families of one of the estimated 100,000 iraqis we've killed. I am quite certain they would be real impressed with your argument.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By J, Big at Mar 30, 2005 05:07 AM
yeah, i'm not sure exactly what you would call it but i'm not here to play semantic games with you. By any name what our government has doe is an atrocious crime against humanity, and to say otherwise rubs salt into the wounds of all we have harmed.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By J, Big at Mar 30, 2005 05:04 AM
If the killing of millions of innocent people around the world in the last half century using the most powerful military force in the history of the world is not terrorism, then what is? Why not ask someone in vietnam or cambodia or nicaragua or chile or el salvador or colombia or palestine or grenada or panama or guatamaeula or a couple dozen other countries we've invaded and wreaked havoc upon eiher overtly with direct military might or covertly thru coups, assasinations bombings sabotages and a whole lot of other nice shit cooked up by the chefs at the agecy what they would call it. Perhaps they would not say terrorism maybe they would call ir barbarism, murder, a violation of international law, a sick and depraved foreign policy beholden to elite interests, a massacre....

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By J, Big at Mar 30, 2005 04:56 AM
should be Rogue State

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By J, Big at Mar 30, 2005 04:55 AM
yakov bok- you are either woefully ignorant of world history or you are an apologist for the often brutal policies employed by the us gov to achieve and maintain its position as the worlds hegemonic power. In case you need a little primer i would suggest you read Blum's Killing Hope and Ogue State as well as Zinn's People's History of the U.S. I didn't mention any Chomsky because judging by some of your earlier posts you have some sort of personal grudge against him. If that doesn't convince you that the US is the 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world today then you can go back to your Likud party rally in peace.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By Jautter, Mind at Mar 30, 2005 02:01 AM
Jump back Bok. If you don't call training foreign military personell in the U.S. and sending them back to El Salvador to butcher innocent people sponsoring terrorism,what do you call it?

Reply this comment

50

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By Peterson, David at Mar 30, 2005 01:34 AM
Friends: Some links to material related to the Volcker Committee's Second Interim Report on its ongoing inquiry into the UN's old Oil-for-Food Program for Iraq:
Independent Inquiry Committee into United Nations Oil-for-Food Program (Homepage) Second Interim Report: The 1998 Procurement of the Humanitarian Goods Inspection Contract, Paul A. Volcker et al., Independent Inquiry Committee, March 29, 2005 "Press Conference by the Secretary-General," March 29, 2005 "Annan says exoneration by Iraq Oil-for-Food probe 'great relief'," UN News Center, March 29, 2005 "Oil, Food Probe Faults Annan for Mismanagement," Evelyn Leopold and Irwin Arieff, Reuters, March 29, 2005 "U.S. Offers Support for Annan After Report," Reuters, March 29, 2005
See, e.g., p. 70 of the actual report, and the very last page of the very last Appendix to the report (p. 144 of the PDF---presuming the pagination works the same for everyone). Then recall the sound and fury with which establishment circles kept showering us over the course of the past week---for example, Monday's Independent---signifying you know what. Wonder how all of the crackpots in the States are going to cope with this report?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By Bok, Yakov at Mar 30, 2005 00:19 AM
Also, please stop expanding the definition of terrorism. The United States is not "a terrorist." Because U.S. military actions may terrorize indivduals, that does not make the U.S. a terrorist by the understanding of the word. It is a commontool of the political correct to expand and change definitions of words. By doing so, the PC are able expand rule and act in a tyranical manner. For example, in University speech codes, looking at someone can be construed as "visual assault." Your expanding the definition of terrorism is analogous. It allows you to bad mouth the U.S. for no reason other than your own loathing for the power and influence you seek.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By Bok, Yakov at Mar 30, 2005 00:14 AM
The United States is at war against terrorist and the state sponsors of terrorism. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a state sponsor of terror. That is inrefutable. What part do you people not understand? The irony of Peterson saying "But this is not the kind of world in which I want to live" is that Peterson's writings only critice U.S. leadership without ever providing a viable alternative.

Reply this comment

50

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By Peterson, David at Mar 29, 2005 20:29 PM
States---people, too---clearly have the right to defend themselves against actual attacks. As for anticipatory self-defense (as well as the Secretary-General's litany of uses of military force: pre-emptive, preventive, and protective), I do not believe that the concept is derivable from the Charter, and is likely to be exploited by the powerful States against the less powerful, with the less powerful left naked and unprotected by anything other than words. Clearly, the State Department spokesman's assertion of a U.S. right of anticipatory self-defense (in real-world terms: the U.S. prerogative to do as it pleases) has a basis in law only inasmuch as foreign troops are building-up on American borders, or the old Soviet Union has launched its ICBMs against the United States. (And other cases such as these.) As has been equally clear since March, 2003, the principle of anticipatory self-defense also means that the Government of Iraq---or a coalition of allies willing to undertake a comparable mission---would have been lawfully permitted to launch an attack at some date on the territorial United States or Britain, given their unambiguous plans to launch an attack on territorial Iraq---a war for which no one has ever held their political leaderships accountable, it is worth noting. But this is not the kind of world in which I want to live.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "In Larger Freedom" VII

By Fws2, Fraser at Mar 29, 2005 18:17 PM
Could anyone direct me, please, to the relevant portion of the UN Charter which says that "anticipatory self-defense" is permissible? All I see is: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (Article 51.)

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (17)

Loading_border