Usefulness Of The UN
Note: This post is in response to the ongoing discussion about the United Nations from a March 27th post. My reply to Nate's comments [item #6] turned out to be so lengthy, they were more appropriate on the front page. Generally, the topic is the usefulness of the United Nations:
Thousands will die because nobody at the UN thought it their duty - don't go putting all the blame on the USA.
Who spearheaded getting 1441 passed and the inspectors back in Iraq? The US. That was a solution short of war. That solution failed.
It is not the duty of the USA to offer resolutions that can win support and get everyone involved. It is our duty to offer resolutions that: (1)Solve problems and (2)Protect US Security.
I don't believe that more severe inspections would have fully disarmed Iraq. And I also don't believe that had we gone that route for 3-6 months, France would have had no choice but to support the war. They could have then pushed for even more intrusive inspections, lauded 'progress' and at the very end, promoted the notion that while not fully disarmed, Saddam was sufficiently disarmed to pose no threat.
The bottom line for me is this: If the UN is simply going to be a body to 2nd guess (or to rubber stamp) the USA's solutions, they are worthless. Worthless because the US isn't always right, and without real alternatives - not just criticism of our ideas - some of our wrongheaded ideas will go unchecked and cause harm. Worthless because they have no solutions of their own to bring to the table. The UN didn't solve Kosovo, it didn't solve Afghanistan, and it didn't solve Iraq.
As a humanitarian organization, the UN has potential; but as a security agency, its track record is horrible. We had allies before the UN existed, and if it went away, we'd have allies without it.
Thousands will die because nobody at the UN thought it their duty - don't go putting all the blame on the USA.
Who spearheaded getting 1441 passed and the inspectors back in Iraq? The US. That was a solution short of war. That solution failed.
It is not the duty of the USA to offer resolutions that can win support and get everyone involved. It is our duty to offer resolutions that: (1)Solve problems and (2)Protect US Security.
I don't believe that more severe inspections would have fully disarmed Iraq. And I also don't believe that had we gone that route for 3-6 months, France would have had no choice but to support the war. They could have then pushed for even more intrusive inspections, lauded 'progress' and at the very end, promoted the notion that while not fully disarmed, Saddam was sufficiently disarmed to pose no threat.
The bottom line for me is this: If the UN is simply going to be a body to 2nd guess (or to rubber stamp) the USA's solutions, they are worthless. Worthless because the US isn't always right, and without real alternatives - not just criticism of our ideas - some of our wrongheaded ideas will go unchecked and cause harm. Worthless because they have no solutions of their own to bring to the table. The UN didn't solve Kosovo, it didn't solve Afghanistan, and it didn't solve Iraq.
As a humanitarian organization, the UN has potential; but as a security agency, its track record is horrible. We had allies before the UN existed, and if it went away, we'd have allies without it.
# | March 29, 2003