The Security Council

[wushijiao]

Kofi Annan made some very conroversial remarks today. Here is a quote from the New York Times:

But Mr. Annan's remarks in a radio interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation on Wednesday, in which he said for the first time that he believed the war was "illegal," set off a tempest of reaction, and raised questions in a number of capitals about why he had chosen this moment to adopt a more muscular syntax about the war.

And then he said this:

"Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution," he said, because "it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine" what the "consequences should be" for Iraq's noncompliance with earlier resolutions.

Let me say that I respect Annan and I think any war should have broad international support. However, the Security Council currently has one member that has makes a decision without any elected support. In fact, Mr. Hu, was really only elected by one man- Deng Xiaoping. So, why should the US (or Russia in the future) have to make security related choices with the agreement of country that may or may not even represent their country's popular will.

As we all know, debate about the Iraq war wasn't very good in the US. The media was timid and both sides ended up finger-pointing like children. Yet, China was even worse, banning any newspaper or media organization printing any pro-war sentiments.

How much weight should the UN Security Council be given in the future?