A Typical Reply

A world without the UN? Nah

The "vital role" that the UN will be allowed in Iraq is limited to some humanitarian assistance and "suggestions" about the make-up of the interim governing mechanism. In other words, Iraq will not be a Cambodia or East Timor where experienced UN civilian staff were sheriffs and de facto rulers heading a transitional authority. Nation-building will be reserved for the Pentagon and its Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) this time. Iraq will be reshaped "the American way".

This decision broaches crucial long-reaching implications. Kofi Annan has argued "above all the UN involvement [in Iraq] brings legitimacy which is necessary, necessary for the country, for the region and for the peoples around the world". The UN has expertise in successful interim administration, establishing rule of law, reconstruction, inter-ethnic reconciliation etc, but "above all", the UN is the voice of what we know as the international community, the will of all nations, the expression of humanity and not just of France. It is the collective and the whole of which France, Iraq and America are individual and equal parts. It is the epicenter of the post-World War II international regime and the overseer of international peace and security. What the Bush administration is basically doing is question each of these fundamental assertions.

For the most part, this article by Sreeram Chaulia is calm and makes a valiant attempt to determine how the UN should be viewed by the US and it's government, we well as an attempt to deflect and refute the criticism the United Nations has been recieving for some time and at ever-increaseing volume and intensity.

But Chaulia doesn't go beyond mere assertions either.

When the strongest nation on Earth is thus determined to undermine the organization that the people of the world chartered to "prevent future generations from the scourge of war", it is a danger signal for the entire world. A world without the UN is inconceivable for the multiple millions of refugees, children, hunger-stricken, poor, conflict-devastated and marginalized humans whose needs are being met daily through its many organizations and specialized arms. But the UN is not merely a material aid and service delivery store, as the US government is reducing it into. Its original and most important purpose is to preserve world peace.

Every morning, I walk to an office on 42nd Street in New York and glimpse the northwestern slice of the UN Secretariat, ironically nesting on land gifted by US corporate giants, the Rockefellers. Manhattan skyscrapers block the remaining visage. When this imperfect view becomes too disconcerting, I stroll down a few blocks to see the full UN edifice resting majestically in Turtle Bay. The United States needs likewise to take the effort and walk a few paces to see the full UN, if for no other reason than to conserve the international system that it dominates and which the UN symbolizes.

No attempt to seriously answer the central and crucial question rhetorically put forth by Richard Perle and the like-minded: "What is to say that a war that might be legitimate, may not be legitimate if it can't get the approval of the United Nations?"

There is no real argument in this opinion piece. No reasoned logic to support the assertions. The UN is important...because it is the UN. It should not be ignored...because it was founded to preserve peace. We must grant it legitimacy...because it is the arbiter of legitimate action.

I disagree completely. The United Nations is not axiomatic. The UN has no moral high ground from which to preach and condemn. This is due to the overwhelming political nature of the body and the nations and people which make it up. The US will look out for it's interests, the Russians theirs, the Chinese theirs, and likewise down the chain. We end up with hypocrisy masquerading as principled foreign policy from all sides at one time or another.

Posted by Drizzten at April 17, 2003 01:29 PM