Posted on 09/25/2003 8:01:20 AM PDT by The Rant
As President Bush neither apologized for the coalition’s actions nor gloated about the fact they did the right thing without the backing of the politically crippled United Nations, it became evident the UN is facing a crisis of validity, definition and identity. Utilizing a system that caters more to a world operating in the World War II Era rather than the 21st Century and encumbered by the growing manipulation of individual country’s political agendas, the UN General Assembly sat politely as the president reminded them of their obligation to their mission statement.
The alphabet media’s take on the reaction to the speech was not unexpected. They spun the facts of the matter to make the moment critical to President Bush when the fact of the matter was that couldn’t have been further from the truth. The spotlight for this moment of truth shined on the United Nations as a whole and effective body. The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan almost had it right in his statements to the assembly when he stated that the UN had reached a moment in which they had to redefine themselves in order to be effective in the 21st Century. Disappointingly, he strayed from the importance of this message when he felt he had to address the validity of removing eminent threats to the world’s security prior to the moment they released their brand of hostility unto their intended victims.
In the 21st Century there is a responsibility to prevent rogue nations, nations founded on the ideals of terrorism, and organizations championed by said nations, from wrecking havoc on legitimate and peaceful governments and their people. Whether the oxymoron of a military solution for the prize of peace is palatable or not is quite irrelevant, although shortsighted peace activists will argue otherwise. More important is our ability to grasp the reality of the age that we are living in.
There are groups that exist such as al Qaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others who are harbored, whether passively or not, by nations that would champion their causes. The past regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq serve as proof positive of this reality. In Afghanistan it was the Taliban, at one time a legitimate government but a government that made a conscience decision to forfeit its legitimacy by championing and harboring those who were openly and actively plotting against the people and governments of genuine and sovereign nations. In Iraq it was the totalitarian regime of Saddam Hussein who not only terrorized his own people but also passively championed the aforementioned terrorist groups to the extent that they had outpost headquarters in several towns within the Iraqi borders. These headquarters were not hidden in the caves ala Torra Bora but existed as storefronts on the main streets of Iraq’s prominent cities. As they plotted and amassed the capabilities to carry out their terrorist activities Saddam Hussein sat idly by thus himself becoming a passive part of their actions and a target for the War of Terror.
One of the questions that faces the United Nations as a legitimate body devoid of any self-absorbed notions and thus bolstering its validity is whether it stands for promoting peace and denouncing terrorism to the point of its eradication or whether they would continue to embrace the idea that the sanctity of sovereignty should stand regardless of the fact a nation is opening and actively abetting and/or promoting future and potential hostilities toward another nation. Is it acceptable to allow a group of terrorists, in essence a hostile political faction, to plan, amass the ability and then execute acts of terror on innocents under the protection of the sanctity of sovereignty provided by the inaction of the United Nations? Is it acceptable to condemn the victim nations of said attacks for their retaliation if they can remove the threat by whatever means necessary before they strike again? Simply stated, the United Nations must redefine itself and its mission statement so that it can defend and champion any actions taken by those victim nations who find themselves targeted by the acts of terrorists.
Another question and problem that needs to be addressed by the redefinition of their mission statement and the restructuring of their operations is how to keep individual countries and the coalitions they may assemble from using the United Nations for their own narcissistic means. It was never so evident than during the debate and final vote of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 that one country, namely France, was able to manipulate the applied intentions of this international body for its own monetary and political gain. As they amassed the few countries that would stand in opposition to the serious and severe consequences Resolution 1441 called for they attempted to bolster their political standing in the world as the lone opposition to a phantom monopoly on authority they perceive the United States as having. They used the bully pulpit to manipulate potential members of the European Union while masking their narcissism with the perceived legitimacy of the United Nations. This became apparent when it was discovered that France had never stopped doing business with Iraq during the time there were UN sanctions in place demanding that the world do so. For a single nation to deny a world body the ability to champion what is right for its own egocentric purposes is for that world body to be a failure.
As the alphabet media spins its politically liberal rhetoric to portray the moment as President Bush’s to either succeed or fail, it is in reality the defining moment for the United Nations. Either they can rise to the occasion and redefine themselves as the world body they envision themselves to be or they can become quite inconsequential on the world stage. In the global chess match that is international politics it is the UN’s move and the fate of their legitimacy hangs in the balance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Salvato is a political media consultant, a freelance writer from the Midwest and the Managing Editor for www.TheRant.us. He is a contributing writer to The Washington Dispatch, OpinionEditorials.com and AmericanDaily.com. He has appeared as a guest panelist on The O’Reilly Factor and his pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com and occasionally featured in The Washington Time sand The London Morning Paper as well as other national and international publications.
But then, common sense is exceedingly uncommon in world politics. Good thing we've cornered the market, I guess.
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.