home > archive > 2003 > this article
Just say no to the UN
By Steve Farrell
The United States ought to nip Saddam Hussein in the bud, right now -- end of debate.
With these provisos:
Translation -- the United States needs to say "Yes to Victory" and "No to the anti-American United Nations."
It's true; an armed Saddam Hussein linked to terrorists, poses a grave danger to the United States -- but let's not overlook other troubling issues.
Stick to an American agenda
Let's insure our agenda is an American one.
President George Herbert Walker Bush said in 1991, "The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective a new world order can emerge." Later on, the president detailed what he meant: "We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."
That slip of the tongue of a liberal Republican was revealing and disturbing. The founders of the UN were largely communists -- the UN's chief architect and first Secretary General, Alger Hiss, a Soviet Spy -- the UN's political structure and objectives, at odds with the US Constitution and the Judeo-Christian ethic (See author's Un-American United Nations) -- and let's not forget this, the constitutional job of the Commander in Chief is to lead the United States, not the United Nations to victory.
The conservative base of President Bush Sr.'s party was shocked and outraged. Some administration officials later admitted they wished he had never said it. In a few months, the President dropped the subject until his term expired.
President Bush II needs to learn the lesson now, his father learned too late. This war needs to have one purpose and one purpose alone, protect the United States -- and yes, the Administration's consistent rhetoric about going it alone, about the UN becoming irrelevant reflects a high learning curve -- but then again, maybe not. This same administration lobbies (behind the scenes at the UN) more aggressively than any prior US administration. And at what? -- Promoting UN resolutions with more bite than bark. The President's address to the United Nations, on September 12, 2002, is a case in point. Said he:
"The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?
"The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime."
Maybe this writer has a vivid imagination, but what he hears is one voice working to gain the support of American conservatives, who fear and despise the UN, and another voice placating Internationalists, who love the UN.
If the internationalist dream of a new world order under the United Nations, is still part of the agenda for war in Iraq -- the time to drop it is now.
Contact Steve at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Other related stories: (open in a new window)
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
© 1996-2003, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.