Help Wanted
The esteemed Instapendent isn't happy with Annan for declaring the US war in Iraq to be "illegal". (And for the record, I believe the Instapendent was against the war, but not because the UN refused to endorse it explicitly.) Well, I'm not happy either. But perhaps it's just because I'm missing something.

So I ask for help from anyone out there who agrees with Kofi.

Given the fact that Clinton's war against Serbia in 1998 was also not endorsed by the UN (and if I remember correctly, unlike the unilateral Bush, he didn't even seek UN approval), one of the following must be true:

a) Clinton's war against Serbia was not "illegal", for some reason that I'm missing.
or
b) Clinton's war against Serbia was "illegal", but the International Community didn't and doesn't care.

So if the answer is (a), please tell me why? If the answer is (b), please tell me why launching an "illegal" war seems to be the most egregious of sins for Bush, yet for Clinton, he was lauded as a humanitarian hero?

Thank you in advance.

Update

This report describes Annan's reponse to Clinton's unilateralism:

Echoing Clinton's justification for bombing Serbia and a phrase made famous by his predecessor, George Bush, in opening the new session of the UN General Assembly Annan declared that the world would no longer allow the sovereignty of member states to shield them from the consequences of outrageous misconduct: "Massive violations of human rights will not stand." After Kosovo and East Timor, it was clear what this meant.

While deploring the failure of NATO to seek Security Council authorization before bombing Serbia-Montenegro, Kofi Annan clearly endorsed the violation of its sovereignty in the name of the political rights of Kosovo's Albanians.

So can anybody tell me why Kofi has changed his mind?
- posted by The Dutchman @ 7:32:00 AM