Tony Blair had better watch out, becausean attack on Iraq without UN authorisation would be illegal, according to Saddam Hussein The Guardian.
Pressing ahead against Iraq without council authorisation would be illegal under current international law and would undermine a significant accomplishment. The charter has helped prevent wars by maintaining a delicate balance between the good achieved by collective action and the catastrophic destruction that might result if an intervention conflicted with the vital interests of a major power.Uh, yeah. Haven't been any wars since that U.N. charter. was formed. That Vietnam thing was just an intellectual debate. The Soviets played chess with Afghanistan. And Syria, Jordan and Egypt, after realizing that attacking Israel would be against the law, merely farted in their general direction.
Only those who have no reason to fear military force can contemplate a world without these protections. It is the possession of a credible nuclear deterrence - and plans for missile defence - that make Bush think he can disregard the UN. The UK, as a middle power, needs international law. The effective use of the UN, not Trident, is what enables the UK to punch above its weight.I'm no expert in military strategy, but my guess is that if Iraq develops nuclear weapons, a temporary restraining order isn't going to be Britain's most effective defense. I'm no expert in military history, but my recollection is that the United Nations, armed with international law, quickly stopped the Serbian attacks on Croatia and Bosnia.