home > archive > 2003 > this article

What's next for the U.N.

By Henry Lamb
web posted March 31, 2003

The first week of fighting has brought news reports from independent journalists that reveal the true colors of the Iraqi regime. No one should be surprised that in Saddam's world, POWs are shot in the head; or that Iraqi soldiers would pretend to surrender in order to ambush Americans; or by any of the other nasty tactics reported thus far.

U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan has shown his true colors; he chose to ignore these atrocities, and instead, chose to condemn the explosions in a market place presumed, and reported to be, U.S. missiles that may have gone astray, which may well have been Iraqi missiles.

Annan expressing regret on March 26 at the UN Security Council that the crisis in Iraq could not have been solved through peaceful means
Annan expressing regret on March 26 at the UN Security Council that the crisis in Iraq could not have been solved through peaceful means

Last Wednesday, the U.N. Security Council showed its true colors by opening its doors to all members who wished to make statements condemning the coalition action in Iraq. Only the delegate from Kuwait spoke in favor of unseating Saddam. If anyone ever had any doubt that the U.N. is an anti-American institution, that doubt should certainly now be removed.

Perhaps, finally, America is showing its true colors - red, white, and blue - by ignoring the U.N., and putting an end to Saddam's dangerous reign of terror. What comes next at the U.N. will be of historic importance.

Both Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac are insisting that the U.N., not the coalition forces, be in charge of administering post-Saddam Iraq. The Bush administration is not rushing to embrace this idea.

There are indications that the U.S. is willing to let the U.N. continue administering the "oil for food" program, and, perhaps, deliver other humanitarian aid, but in the matter of organizing a new government, the U.S. has its own ideas.

For Annan and Chirac, the issue is not the future of Iraq, but the future of the U.N. that is of greatest concern. America has persuaded 47 nations to publicly join the coalition of the willing, and with the non-public supporters, the coalition is nearly twice the size of the U.N.-backed Desert Storm coalition. This coalition includes the majority of the European Union, and the majority of NATO, leaving France and Germany, as the isolated nations.

Since both France and Germany must have the United Nations to exercise the anticipated power of the European Union, the future administration of Iraq is of utmost importance to them. If the United States ignores their demands, and creates an administrative mechanism outside the U.N., the relevance – and the future – of the U.N. and the European Union will be in question.

Despite the anti-American rhetoric that has, and will continue to spew forth from the Arab press, and much of the liberal press in the U.S., the United States should not trust the U.N. with any important mission. The U.N. has demonstrated its anti-American bias, its inefficiency, indeed, its corruption in many areas, and its inability, or unwillingness, to enforce its own resolutions.

The United Nations' vision of creating world peace through world law, judged by a world court, enforced by a world army - has failed. It has failed because Americans are not willing to surrender their freedom and sovereignty to a world government.

The conflict between national sovereignty and global government has been on a collision course since the inception of the U.N. The two forces collided on March 17, when the United States announced the end of discussions about Iraq. When allied forces moved into Iraq, without formal U.N. approval, it proved only one thing: U.N. approval is meaningless.

The same nations that provided the money and the military power to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, are now driving him from power. The fact is, that the U.N.'s approval of Desert Storm had nothing to do with its success. The absence of U.N. approval has nothing to do with the success of the current battle. In fact, had it not been for the U.N.'s involvement with Desert Storm, which prevented the removal of Saddam 11 years ago, this battle would not have been necessary.

It's time to let the U.N. fade away. Some of the international organizations that now operate under its auspices may, indeed, be important. If they are, they can earn their continued existence by providing a real service to the nations that pay for their existence. More than 130 U.N. agencies and organizations have become nothing more than self-perpetuating bureaucracies working to justify their own existence.

Now is the time to support Congressman Ron Paul's HR114, a bill calling for the withdrawal of the United States from the U.N. Now is the time for the United States to ignore the demands of Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac, and help the Iraqi people discover the freedom that Saddam has denied them. Now is the time for the United States to stand firmly on the principles of freedom, and not in the shadow of the U.N.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization, and chairman of Sovereignty International.

Printer friendly version
Printer friendly version
Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story




Printer friendly versionSend a link to this page!


Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
e-mail:
Subscribe
Unsubscribe

 


Home

1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.