Tweet
Originally posted by Agathon
Unfortunately , it's also an internation debating society that the democracy loving citizens of most countries care about very deeply because they see it as providing the beginnings of a real system of international law.
The problem facing the pro-war leaders is that they didn't realise that their own constituents care about the UN much more than they do. This won't bother Bush much since the UN has least influence in the US, but the Europeans really care about it and so do the Canadians, which shows why there is such a difference of opinion on this side of the Niagara Falls.
I can't believe that they didn't account for this. After all almost everyone I know thinks that an international criminal court is a fantastic idea since the current system allows the Suhartos, Pinochets and Kissingers to get away with mass murder. Opposing such a court can't but help make you look like a bad guy.
Unfortunately , it's also an internation debating society that the democracy loving citizens of most countries care about very deeply because they see it as providing the beginnings of a real system of international law.
The problem facing the pro-war leaders is that they didn't realise that their own constituents care about the UN much more than they do. This won't bother Bush much since the UN has least influence in the US, but the Europeans really care about it and so do the Canadians, which shows why there is such a difference of opinion on this side of the Niagara Falls.
I can't believe that they didn't account for this. After all almost everyone I know thinks that an international criminal court is a fantastic idea since the current system allows the Suhartos, Pinochets and Kissingers to get away with mass murder. Opposing such a court can't but help make you look like a bad guy.
Power grab could end UN sham
France has promised to veto the US-British-Spanish resolution to end Saddam Hussein's manipulation of the United Nations. Two other veto-bearing members of the Security Council, Russia and China, are expected to join in protecting Iraq from being forced to disarm.
President Bush has made it clear he will call for the vote that will expose the council as unwilling to protect the world from blackmail by terrorist states with ultimate weapons.
This means that the United Nations, as now constituted, may continue humanitarian activity but need no longer function as the umbrella under which strong nations restrain aggression.
It has failed dismally before. Because Russia had the veto to protect Serbia's dictator, the United States had to turn to NATO to act in the United Nations's stead against aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, interceding after tens of thousands of lives had been lost. A half-century before, only the temporary absence of the Soviet delegate enabled the United States to fly the UN flag in stopping North Korea's invasion of the South.
As the Security Council exhibits its irrelevance again, the United States and its many allies will step in to fill the void. These Allied Nations will assume the burden of replacing Saddam and removing his arsenal of terror.
But what of the threat of terror opening a second front in Asia? True to form, the United Nations is frozen. Russia and China will do nothing to contain the nuclear threat from their neighbour, North Korea. France and Germany look away, urging the United States to buy off the extortionists unilaterally.
This is a further abdication of collective security. It may be that the United States, even during the attention-consuming eviction of Saddam, will have to create another regional coalition of free nations to deal with the nuclear danger posed by North Korea.
The communist regime in Pyongyang is revving up its reactors to produce plutonium and is ominously testing its medium-range missiles. With malice aforethought, it tried to force down our unarmed reconnaissance aircraft so as to take its crew hostage.
How to respond? With the United Nations paralysed as usual, we see a complacent China, a mischievous Russia, an appeasing South Korea _ as well as accommodationists in the United States _ demanding that the United States submit to another round of blackmail.
A month ago, I characterised our 37,000 troops stationed near the border of North Korea as a ``reverse deterrent.'' If we were forced to bomb the facilities producing nuclear weapons for sale to terrorists, one-third of these US troops within range of 11,000 communist artillery pieces would be the first casualties of a North Korean attack. With so many Americans as the North's human shields, Pyongyang's blackmailers are emboldened _ the opposite of deterred. South Korea's leaders have gained popularity by vilifying Americans stationed along the demilitarised zone and demanding that the United States accede to the North's demands. Recently, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressed an interest in redeploying endangered Americans southward, or to other bases. At the same time, he ordered 20 long-range bombers to our base in Guam. South Korea's new prime minister got the message. ``The role of US troops as a tripwire,'' the worried official told our ambassador, ``must be maintained.'' Previously anti-American politicians are suddenly encouraging pro-American demonstrations.
Too late. America's strategic interest in this post-Security Council era is to let the strong South defend its territory while we make clear to weapons traders in the North that their illicit nuclear production is vulnerable to air attack. That readiness will bring about what diplomatists call ``a fruitful, regional, multilateral negotiation.'' No war needed. No Security Council obfuscation necessary. We can thank the Franco-German power grab for precipitating the diplomatic crisis that could usher in a post-Security Council era.
Comment