If we are not the occupying power in Iraq, what are we?

Funny how we bring up the Geneva Convention when it's convenient for us.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31918-2003Apr24.html

.
.
.
In Geneva today speaking to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the U.S.-led coalition to respect international law as the "occupying power" in Iraq, drawing immediate complaints from U.S. officials who resist the label "occupier" and say coalition forces are respecting the rules.

"I hope the coalition will set an example by making clear that they intend to act strictly within the rules" governing the occupation of conquered nations, Annan told the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland.

U.S. officials said they had not yet established whether the coalition that toppled Saddam was the occupying power under international law but coalition forces were nevertheless abiding by international conventions.
.
.
.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2974035.stm

US anger at Annan remarks


Annan said he hoped end of conflict would herald a new era of human rights
The United States has reacted angrily to comments made by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in which he reminded US forces in Iraq of their duties as an "occupying power" in the country.
Making his annual address to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva Mr Annan said he hoped coalition troops would adhere to the Geneva Conventions and accept their responsibility for the safety of the Iraqi people.

Only minutes after the secretary-general had finished speaking, Kevin Moley, the US ambassador to the UN in Geneva, made his irritation clear.

He said that the US had repeatedly spelled out to Mr Annan and the world that its troops were "in conformance and wanting to be in conformance in every way with the Geneva Conventions".

"Quite frankly, we find it odd at best that the secretary-general would feel that he had to bring this to our attention," Mr Moley said.

Neglect accusations

The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says Washington is angered by the use of the term "occupying power", which it says may not be correct under international law.

.
.
.

 

Really wasn't thinking of the propaganda purposes, only the legal obligations that come with being the occupying power as specified in the Geneva Convention, which we attempt to ease out of by saying this. It's hypocritical for us to make accusations and invade countries because of international law when it suits us and to ignore international law when it doesn't suit us.