[Announce] Article on UN's Relevance

[announce-admin at comm-org.utoledo.edu]

From:           	Millerkyun at aol.com


Following FYI is an article pertaining to the important and relevant role of 
 the UN, especially in dealing with the dangerous and tragic crisis unfolding 
in Iraq. In particular, there are several suggestions as to how the UN can be 
vital to the US and its allies in dealing with the post-military Iraq and in 
combatting terrorism.  If you agree with these conclusions, please share the 
article with your  friends, colleagues, and relatives. 

The entire article may be located at the Washington International website at
<www.washingtoninternational.com.> An abbreviated version of this article 
appeared in the Frankfort (Kentucky) State Journal, and will appear in other 
publications.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

"UN: Even More Relevant and Responsible"
by Bill Miller
<www.washingtoninternational.com>

      President Bush scored dramatic victories at the UN when he challenged 
the world body to enforce its resolutions against Saddam Hussein, and when he 
unexpectedly secured the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1441, 
requiring that UN weapons inspectors be allowed back into Iraq. Since those 
landmark accomplishments, the US has been on a downhill slide that may bode 
ill for a protracted campaign against terrorism.

    The US, arguably with the best-trained, funded, and most professional 
military in the world, has invaded Iraq. What led up to this drastic action? 
What major problems have arisen because of it? How can the US and the UN 
develop a strategy that will effectively re-build Iraq, as well as deal with 
other international threats, such as terrorism or North Korea with nuclear 
capabilities?

      President Bush was correct to push for disarming Iraq of weapons of 
mass destruction (WMD), and he was strongly supported for doing so. 
 Unfortunately, a disconnect developed between stating a laudable goal and 
implementing it. The US failed to convince the world that Saddam should be 
overthrown and Iraq occupied. Major missteps occurred because the US used 
some circumstantial, bogus, and uncorroborated evidence of WMD activity in 
Iraq. The US unsuccessfully attempted to link Saddam with the 9-11 tragedy, 
as well as undermined the UN inspection process by not sharing information, 
ridiculing the inspection process, and not allowing sufficient time for 
inspections. 

          Just imagine if the US, rather than issuing unrealistic deadlines 
and
demands, had taken the tack of a gradual military buildup in Iraq through 
2003, thus continuing to pressure Saddam; giving the Security Council and 
inspectors more time than was requested; and selecting a final deadline of 
January 2, 2004, to complete the inspections-with the ultimate threat of 
military action as a last resort.  Although France and Russia have economic 
interests and historical ties with Iraq, they would have been pressured to 
accept  this reasonable plan. Instead, the US became impatient with the UN, 
balked at the Security Council debates, built an international coalition, and 
took unprecedented military action by invading a country that had not 
directly attacked the US.

           The US has cobbled together a Potemkin Coalition of 45 or so 
countries that appear powerful in numbers, but, after looking behind the 
façade, is really a group of economic and military lightweights, except for 
Australia and Britain. The coalition will offer little military support to 
fight in Iraq and minuscule financial assistance to pay the projected $200 
billion to $1.8 trillion cost of the war and occupation, 90% which will be 
borne by the American taxpayer, according to many experts.  Most of the 
coalition leaders are in a Catch-22 since their citizens (as did most 
Americans until the invasion began) oppose armed intervention without UN 
authorization. Yet, this coalition is led primarily by "political elites" 
that do not reflect the democratic will of the vast majority of their 
citizens. 

      Another more devastating and worrisome development is the massive 
negative international public opinion emerging against the US.  Overseas, US 
governmental policies have reached an all-time low. Polls show the bulk of 
the world views the US as an imperialistic, hegemonic aggressor stealing 
Iraqi oil, ignoring international law (which it has done in violation of 
Article 51 of the UN Charter), and illegally deposing Saddam Hussein (who is 
not highly-regarded even among Iraqis nor people opposing the US). 

      Two "shock and awe" campaigns are presently underway: a military one in 
Iraq and the other consisting of how disdained US foreign policy is viewed 
overseas. A tsunami wave of opposition is racing at incredible speed 
worldwide and is potentially damaging to the campaign on terrorism because 
the US needs strong international cooperation and coordination to combat Al 
Qaeda and other foes. Also, at some point, this immense reservoir of 
resentment may be transferred to how foreigners deal with American 
businesspeople, tourists, and students abroad. 

      To compound the negative perception held by many foreigners, many of 
the media joined the Bush Administration in demonizing and vilifying anyone, 
especially the French, who did not agree with them. When Congressman 
Representative Bob Ney, (R-Ohio) lobbied to have "French fries" changed to 
"Freedom fries" in the House of Representatives Dining Room, a poignant 
message reverberated worldwide reminding foreigners of the "Ugly American" 
from the 1950s who was caricatured as uninformed and incompetent in dealing 
with foreigners and insensitive to their concerns. 

      Not to be an apologist for French intransigence, but how would 
Americans have reacted if the French had led a boycott against American goods 
and  products when the Bush Administration arrogantly and arbitrarily 
undertook unpopular policies and thumbed its nose at the world? For example, 
when the US boycotted the Kyoto Global Warming Protocol, aggressively 
undermined the International Criminal Court (which now could be helpful in 
prosecuting an international criminal, such Saddam), and, potentially fueled 
the nuclear arms race by withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty with Russia.  

      The most recent foreign policy faux pas included scuttling an agreement 
whereby poor countries could buy generic drugs to combat AIDs and other 
diseases that are destroying their societies, as well as wrecking a global 
health agreement to reduce tobacco consumption worldwide.

      Some of the ironies of the Administration's policies are  that 
eliminating Saddam may not reduce terrorism because Osama bin Laden and Al 
Qaeda will more easily recruit Islamic fundamentalists as terrorists, the UN 
will emerge stronger than before; and, while the US is still the military and 
economic superpower, France has been elevated internationally as the moral 
superpower because of its David vs. Goliath stance at the UN.

            What can be done to stem the negative perception of the US, 
develop a comprehensive strategy with the UN to confront major international 
challenges, and win the campaign against terrorism, which is really the 
ultimate goal?  For starters, the US should:

---involve the UN immediately (which President Bush has mentioned doing) , 
especially in the area of social and humanitarian programs, in the 
re-building of Iraq;

---work to repair the tattered relations with the French, Russians, and 
Germans, who will be absolutely critical in confronting future economic, 
terrorism and security issues. Iraq is just a blip on the radar screen in the 
anti-terrorism campaign. International cooperation is absolutely critical to 
hammer out an effective strategy to deal with Iran and North Korea, both of 
which pose a greater danger to the US than does Iraq;

---highlight  America's right to self-defense and drop this incendiary 
"pre-emptive strike"  policy  which is in violation of the UN Charter and 
international law. If the US can launch a pre-emptive strike, why can't North 
Korea attack South Korea, or India attack Pakistan if they feel threatened?; 

---realize that the UN is still the US's number 1 international ally. UN 
agencies are vital to combat terrorism in many ways, such as moving aircraft, 
ships, and mail (without anthrax) safely around the world. Also, all of the 
30 plus UN agencies are of great assistance to the US in achieving its 
foreign policy goals, such as combating environmental degradation and 
fighting diseases, curbing the flow of illegal drugs, promoting international 
trade and economic development, and enhancing human rights.

      The recent "food fight" at the UN Security Council vividly shows how 
countries and leaders can be childish, immature, and often lose sight of the 
"big picture." The UN is much broader than one resolution on how to disarm 
Iraq. Fantasies of abandoning the rule of law, going-it-alone, and forsaking 
the ONLY international organization that brings the countries of the world 
together to resolve their problems, is sheer folly. The UN, although it has 
shortcomings, is still the only game in town, and there is no better 
alternative. 

      Today, even with the bickering at the Security Council, the UN has 
proven to be more responsible and relevant than at any point during its 
58-year history, and it will not follow in the footsteps of its predecessor, 
the failed League of Nations. The only sustainable, heavily supported, and 
pragmatic  "road map to peace" that President Bush correctly touts, be it in 
North Korea or the Middle East, runs directly through the UN.