Iraq Is In Turmoil Due To The 2003 US Invasion, Says Ex-UN Chief Kofi Annan

Iraq is in a delicate state due to the US-led invasion of 2003 that never got a UN Security Council mandate, said Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General between 1997 and 2006, according to rt.

"You cannot disassociate the situation in Iraq today from the US intervention of 2003. Because not only did the intervention take place, but they dismantled the Iraqi Army, which was the tool of Saddam to maintain law and order," Annan said in Oksana Boyko's Worlds Apart show.

"The civil service, the Baathist Party were all [dismantled]. So the structures and state institutions vanished overnight, creating a very serious vacuum, which has led to where we are today. So I don't think anybody can argue with that. The link is clear," he added.

Earlier last year, Annan had said that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal, according to theguardian. "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter's point of view it was illegal," he said.

This week, Annan came to Moscow as head of the Elders, a body of important figures started by Nelson Mandela in 2007. It raised significant issues including Ukraine, Syria and Iran with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other prominent statesmen.

Annan said that among UN's bigger failures is not giving smaller nations a greater voice in international affairs, and not being able to fix the accountability on the big powers for their wrongdoings.

"After the Yugoslav war, attempts were made to make leaders and people accountable. Several tribunals were set up - the tribunal for Yugoslavia and Tribunal for Rwanda, and there have been several indictments. And today, we have the International Criminal Court," he said. "But what is interesting is that the big powers are not members of the Court, and yet they sit in the Security Council and refer smaller countries and others to the Court."

"In effect, [they are] saying we are going to apply the law to the small people and the small countries, but we would absolve ourselves, it wouldn't apply to us. What sort of justice is that? It has to be, we have to aim for a system, and a legal system where the laws are applied fairly and consistently across the board."

Before permitting military intervention, it is important to assess the effects of military invasion as well as its impact.

"You have to start on the basis that you should do no harm. You shouldn't do more harm than is necessary. So you have to assess the situation to see will the intervention help, would it have a positive aspect, or would it do more harm. And if you analyze it and you were to conclude that the results would be much more disastrous, then what's the point of intervention? What would the people gain? What are you offering them, if it's going to make their situation worse? And how do you explain to the world why you intervened?" he explained.

Although sometimes using force is necessary, yet it should be used as a threat, not a solution, he said.

"Sometimes the threat of potential use of force is much more effective than actual use of force. When the other side knows that you have the capacity and you may use it, the attitude is different," he said, adding that his own negotiation experience as a leader with no military force at his disposal was quite enlightening.

"But if the Secretary-General, the individual, is saying, look, be careful, you have to do the right thing otherwise you may provoke a reaction that will be much more brutal than the conversation I'm having with you, is something quite different. So, for me it's the threat rather than actually jumping in to intervention," he explained.

Genuinely seeking compromise is far more productive, Annan said.

"When you begin to call each other names, when you begin to demonize the other, when you begin to hate the other in order to accept yourself, you are really complicating the situation," he said.

"Sometimes when you reach [for a compromise] you are able to get to understand what is it that is driving them, what is it that is making them behave the way they do. And you begin to work with that knowledge, you'd sometimes be surprised the progress you would make," he added. "But if you're dealing with somebody that you have demonized, that you consider is worthless, you are starting a conversation on a very false basis. You've lost the conversation before you even get into it."