Posted on 03/10/2003 7:28:26 AM PST by knighthawk
There's intense lobbying of UN Security Council members ahead of a vote on a new draft resolution setting a deadline for Iraqi disarmament. Secretary of State Colin Powell said at the weekend that the United States was "in striking distance" of winning passage of the resolution, but added meaningfully that he would not be surprised if France blocked it with a veto. The French government is working desperately to stop it and has sent its foreign minister on a tour of the three African members on the council to urge them to vote against.
France's fresh diplomatic initiative seems futile given that the US has made clear it's prepared to invade Iraq even without a UN mandate. Many fear this exercise is going to destroy the UN's legitimacy.
But Arend-Jan Boekestijn, professor of international relations at Utrecht University, rejects this argument. He told Newsline's Jane Murphy that the UN's prestige has already been undermined by its inability to implement previous resolutions.
"Surely there will be a problem of course, because the United Nations would be in a much stronger position if the resolution is adopted, but I think there is another problem: there have already been 17 resolutions in the last 12 years regarding Iraq, and if the UN is not able to implement them, it means the international order is already damaged by the behaviour of the United Nations itself. I agree that the UN is undermined by this whole new situation, but I don't think you could argue that this is the fault of America or Britain."
RN: "You mean resolutions insisting on Iraq's disarmament which haven't been fulfilled?"
"Exactly, and if an international organization is unable to impose its own will upon the world, then it becomes powerless."
RN: "But then again, France would argue that in fact those resolutions are now being implemented, that we are seeing progress in that the reports from the UN weapons inspectors are saying that Iraq is now disarming …"
"But the problem is weapons inspections will never work. It is perfectly possibly, even if you have Iraq full of weapons inspectors, that somebody is trying to construct new weapons. This is a very difficult problem. I don't think Iraq at the moment poses a real threat for the world. I don't think that there is a significant link between Baghdad and al-Qaeda, but I still support Mr Blair's decision for the simple reason that if we let him go now and withdraw the soldiers, or choose not to attack and continue the weapons inspections, I think the problem will remain, because the only way to disarm a nation that doesn't want to disarm, is regime change."
RN: "But if the UN Security Council doesn't vote in favour of military action and one or two countries go ahead, doesn't that go to the heart of the whole reason for having a United Nations? Why have it if individual countries are going to play world cop?"
"That's not true, because we have a resolution, 1441, which says that Saddam has to prove himself, he has to draw up a full list of all his weapons, and if he fails to do that, he'll face the severest of consequences, that's the wording of resolution 1441. Now, he simply hasn't produced any complete lists, even Dr Blix says there are problems here …"
RN: "But there is still time, there is still room to use as much diplomatic pressure as possible … "
"But history teaches us that you can only disarm governments that really have the intention to disarm."
RN: "But just looking at the position of the United Nations and its legitimacy: opinion polling around the world show that people in general are against this war, unless it has the backing of the UN, a United Nations mandate. So, people clearly feel that it's important that this goes through the United Nations."
"Yes, but then people must also acknowledge that over the last twelve years, the UN has produced 17 resolutions that haven't been implemented. That's strange, because it means the organisation is powerless. I'm not going to argue here that we should abolish the United Nations, but I only want to say that there is a limit to international justice and that's because we don't have a world government."
And we don't want one either!
No more UN for US-list
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
The UN's "relevance" is gone.
If I had my way, there would be an EVICTION notice on the front door with a demand to vacate within 30 days.
The professor sure got that right. And when the UN does adopt this resoulution, the relevancy-o-meter will shoot right up, unfortunately. The problem is, too many Freepers (and presumably therefore, too many conservatives) are becoming too complacent that this whole episode is will prove to be the UN's death throes, when in all likelihood it'll prove to be just the opposite. Now is not the time to slacken in the fight against them. They have but one goal: usurpation in any way they can. They are by no means defeated as of yet.
I was in high school when the UN was formed, and I was involved in the UN Fiasco known as the Korean War -- when the Chinese communists, with Russian backing, intervened to keep North Korea communist.
The UN has leaned toward one-world government -- and communism -- from the beginning, but its founding principle was idealistic.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." -- Karl Marx, Capital, Modern library ed. (adbridged). pg 42
I'm thankful that our President is proving the UN irrelevant. GW is proving himself to be a man with sense.
You might want to take the advice from your handle. When the Security Council approves military action against Iraq (and it will), our President will make it clear just how relevant he considers the UN to be.
No. Kick 'em out.
The what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.