On the United Nations--read if politically inclined

[Merryprankster]

The Bush administration has a consistent formula for dealing with any issue it decides is important--hit it hard, hit it vociferously, and - most importantly - stay on message. The message in this case is "Iraq is a threat, a real threat, and something needs to be done." However, the writing between the lines is "If the U.N. is to remain a relevant political body, it must back its resolutions with action." This portion of the Bush message seems to be escaping a great deal of people, which, oddly enough, is the real crisis.

During the Cold War, everybody knew the main players: NATO, the Warsaw Pact and their affiliated/allied nations. If the Warsaw Pact moved one way then NATO would counter, and vice versa. Consequently,these two blocs were the de facto sanctioning bodies for military action abroad. Member nation-state resources were used to further the ends of each side of this bilateral power structure. During this era, the U.N. security council's structure ensured its impotence, as any call to action would immediately provoke a veto from one or more permanent members. Consequently, U.N. resolutions lacked authority and the organization functioned primarily as a negotiation forum for NATO and the Warsaw Pact, a humanitarian organization providing aid to underdeveloped and developing countries, and as a voice for nations which were not a member of either main power faction.

However, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Iron Curtain eradicated the almost assured veto on U.N. security actions. The U.N. was now potentially a force to be reckoned with as ignored rhetoric might now carry the weight of punitive action. Unfortunately, that potential has not been fully realized. While the U.N. has had some minor security resolution successes, collectively it still behaves almost strictly as a deliberative body; 50 years of habit is hard to break. It is used to diplomacy, lofty idealism, and carefully worded moral outrage. It is unused to vigorous action in support of its espoused underlying principles.

The current crisis is a test of U.N. authority. The body is at a turning point: It may choose to enforce its twelve-year old, repeatedly ignored resolutions, authored in the wake of the Gulf War. If so, it will show Iraq, and the world, that ignoring the U.N. is a path fraught with peril. If it does not act to enforce its resolution it will show the world that dismissing the U.N. is a viable alternative to compliance. It would be a shame to see a potentially great force for human rights and freedoms relinquish that possibility, all for want of action.

The current administration may not handle affairs with the most finely tuned diplomatic radar, but it clearly sees the dilemma. The U.S. is now playing a finely judged game of brinkmanship in an effort to force the U.N. to stay on message: "Ignore our resolutions at your peril."

[sapphire tygre]

The u.n. definitely has to be scrutinized. I dont think usa should let it completely control our actions. People seem to forget that these u.n. people have personal motivations too.

[old jong]

The U.N. should not also be controlled by one country more than the others.
I am definitively not a USA hater but I don't think it has the right to impose to others or play "big brother" to the rest of the world.

[sapphire tygre]

Look I agree but until usa wises up and starts putting capable governments in power, with or without consent, it's the way things will be. If the u.n. controlled too many decisions things would fall apart even more. Dont forget the islamic fanatics, all over, the u.n. wont deal with the problem, usa is doing just enough...

[old jong]

The world is not an easy place sometimes. Diplomacy is an art mastered by very few people (As seen on this forum!);)
Let's just say that it's good that Bush was not there at Kennedy's place during the Cuban missile crisis.

[sapphire tygre]

I dont agree with Bushs policies 1/2 the time, but germany, france, etc make bad middle east decisions too. BTW, not all europe shares the views of france and germany, the usa is not the only country that recognizes fanatical islam to be a problem.

[old jong]

Nobody is denying this. But I think that all countries should have the right to their own foreign policies without ingerances.Specialy when we are talking about war.
The USA is part of the UN not it's leader.
Of course there are surely lots of things ordinary people like us (and I mean american citizens included) simply don't know about.So,let's hope for the best.

[TigerJaw]

The UN has suffered a crisis of confidence for many years and it's not just over the Iraq problem. There are many outstanding UN resolutions which have not been backed up by action. The fact that the only resolutions that are ever inforced by military means are the one's that the US wish to be enforced only makes the UN seem weaker, not stronger.

Note that the US has used it's veto more times than any other security council member. The US also refuses to sign several key treaties (human rights of children, discrimination against women, ICC, etc.). So it's no good the US blaming Europe for weakening the UN when the US consistently shows contempt for international law.

[sapphire tygre]

Agreed, agreed, I'm the first to critisize usa foreign policy, believe me.... But on this one I dont think the u.n. is right. Do I think the usa is some rightious warrior for the good of the world? Hell no. On this one it's necessity over motives.

[Merryprankster]

Not signing a treaty is a little different than disobeying a resolution that threatens punitive action.

[Crimson Phoenix]

If I may throw in my two euros


BTW, not all europe shares the views of france and germany, the usa is not the only country that recognizes fanatical islam to be a problem

What distorted piece of disinformation led to such conclusion?? Being against military action in Iraq cannot be equated to "not recognizing fanatical Islam to be a problem". These are two separate problems. No one yet came with undeniable evidence that Saddam is directly linked to Ben Laden. I understand it is Bush's main justification for a military action, and as the recent developments showed, this justification is far from substanciated. Now if the real reason of the conflict were to take "fanatical islamism" down, it seems a lot of countries should be dealt with before Iraq. Why not just admit that Bush WANTS to take down Saddam, and is obviously trying to find any reasons to justify it? Putting Saddam down will not stop "fanatical Islam" a bit, because he's the wrong target...

On a sidenote, Paris in particular has been the target of several DOZENS of "fanatical Islam" claimed (and verified) bombings the last 20 years...Most of them in crowded places like shopping streets or metro stations...Artisanal bombs filled with nails and bolts obviously designed to maim and kill as many people possible. So let me tell you that European country are far more aware of the dangers of "fanatical Islam" than you think...but before 9/11 you didn't really seem to see...

[red5angel]

CRimson Pheonix makes a good point about terrorist attacks on Europe. however I have to disagree that atacking Saddam will not hurt islamic extremists. Anything to take out part otheir support structure is ok by me. If we can depose a tyrant at the same time then hey!

[Crimson Phoenix]

Fair enough

[sapphire tygre]

Crimson Pheonix, you say france has had many attacks, so what gives with your reasoning? Tsk Tsk, already forgotten about Charles Martel? Put on your tunic, it's time to go kick some ### in the land down south.

[TigerJaw]

Okay, my post may have come over a bit anti-american and had you all rolling your eyes at another uncle sam bashing euro fraidy-cat but I think there's more to my argument than that.

My objection to the 'we must invade Iraq for the sake of the UNs credibility' argument is that the hipocrasy of selectively enforcing UN resolutions is what leads to the UNs lack of credibilty and to suggest that the UN is about to sudenly loose all face because France and Germany don't want to invade Iraq is a bit silly, IMHO.

[sapphire tygre]

Yes the usa and u.n. are curiously selective about who they help. I think alot of these current "problems" should have been taken care of a long time ago. Like the Phychadelic Furs song "President gas" ''President gas... It's president gas again......" Some things never change.

[Braden]

Good post MerryPrankster. I agree completely.

[Laughing Cow]

Have to agree with Crimson Phoenix.

Europe had it's long share of Terrorist attacks since WW II.

Easy to come to mind are attacks on Vienna & Rome airport, PLO bombings of Israeli shops and travel agencies, Plane hijacking, etc.

cheers.

[Merryprankster]

Not really what the thread was about though, was it? UN as a viable international force--that's the issue.

[LeeCasebolt]

The UN has no credibility in the international community, for one reason - it has no power. However we may kid ourselves about the spread of civilized diplomacy in international relations, the simple truth is national leaders (especially autocrats such as Saddam) are persuaded only by power, be that power economic or military. The UN has no independent military or economic influence, and hence no power.

The UN has been able to succcessfully imitate the appearance of power - Korea and Gulf War 1 most notably - only in cases where the US was strongly in favor of action and there was no clear, firm opposition. No other nation has the combination of political will, economic influence, and military power to rally, cajole, blackmail, and intimidate a significant portion of the world's powers into action, and so in the absence of US interest, the UN is unable to get second-tier powers like the European states, Australia, Canada, etc to take action in any cause. As a rule, no superpower, no action.

As long as the current state of affairs remains in place, where nations rail against US "imperialism" and "cowboy tactics" but rely on American military power to enforce international agreements, the UN will remain a sham organization, a figurehead whose only practical uses are basic humanitarianism and providing an ethical cloak for American action abroad.

Lee Casebolt