U.N. occupation of Iraq Examined
The Bush Administration is reportedly considering a new United Nations resolution which would, in effect, “authorize” the occupation of Iraq. While this may not seem like a bad idea at first glance, it is. Although the U.S. should try to recruit allies to send peacekeeping troops into Iraq, involvement by the U.N. would only make matters worse.
The truth is that the U.N. is full of countries with dictatorships and absolute monarchs (and some democracies – read: France!) who would love to see the U.S. fail in Iraq. Many of these nations are led by tyrants who spew venomous anti-Americanism to keep their own people in line. As long as they can deflect criticism to the U.S., the better their chances of retaining power. Just take a look at some of the propaganda manufactured by leaders of many of the Arab nations.
The U.N. has an atrocious human rights record. The U.N. Security Council had passed 17 resolutions against Saddam Hussein’s regime, but key members, notably France, Russia, and China, had no intention of enforcing them. As anyone with any understanding of law can tell you, laws are meaningless if they are not enforced. The U.N.'s failure to enforce their own resolutions thus negates any authority these resolutions held. Fortunately, President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and our approximately 45 coalition partners, had the courage to do the right thing in regards to Iraq.
The idea that France, China, and nations such as Chile, Syria, Germany, and Cameroon should dictate U.S. national security is ludicrous. That’s not to say the U.S. should be able to do whatever it wants, but having to depend on them to okay any action we take is not only silly, it’s dangerous.
The Iraq situation is not the only U.N. failure by a longshot. To get an understanding of how loony the United Nations has become, we need only look at the current members of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Currently chaired by Muammar Gaddafi's Libya, this commission also includes such beacons of freedom as Algeria, China, Fidel Castro’s Cuba (there’s a reason people climb in rafts and head for Miami!), Saudi Arabia, Sudan (which still practices slavery, though it’s not politically correct to point this out), Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. All these countries have horrible human rights records, and none is a democracy. From the Tiananmen Square massacre in China, to public executions in Saudi Arabia, the leaders of these nations brutally crush any political opposition.
One of the more humorous (though insane) U.N. follies is that Iraq was recently scheduled to chair the U.N. Committee on Disarmament.
While most U.N. members hate America, we are not their favorite target (though we are a close second). By far, the favorite target of U.N. rebuke is Israel. In fact, about twenty-five percent of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights official condemnations have been against Israel, currently the only democracy in the Middle East (though that is changing). Israel has been denounced more times than Saddam Hussein.
Even though Israel is the constant target of terrorism, few, if any, Palestinian suicide bombings have been mentioned in U.N. Resolutions. While the U.N. constantly calls on Israel to withdraw from West Bank and Gaza, it never mentions China's brutal occupation of Tibet, or Russia's violations against Chechnya. The U.N. did too little, too late, in stopping Sloban Milosevic's genocide or genocide in Rwanda. Apparently these are only minor infractions when compared to Israel's attempts to defend herself.
We could point out more U.N ."success stories," but the point has been made. This international body is mostly just a forum for dictatorships and monarchies to spout off anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. I am not an isolationist by any means, but large bureaucracies such as the U.N. which have no real value outside of a few charity organizations are not even worth preserving, let alone leading efforts as crucial as the stabilization of Iraq.
This criticism of the United Nations may sound arrogant, and perhaps it is. However, when one looks at the great American leaders of the twentieth century, the names Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan are usually mentioned. All of them were successful without help from the U.N. President Bush and his successors can be as well. The reconstruction and democratization of Iraq is one of the most important missions of our lifetimes, and we cannot afford to allow the U.N. to ruin it.
In the meantime, the United States would be wise to demand some serious U.N. reforms. Sadly, that will probably not happen anytime soon. The U.N. is heavily entrenched in our political landscape. House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX), Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), and others have called on the U.S. to withdraw, but they are in the minority. But, as with all things, that could change in the future.
Until then, we will have to continue to put up with the foolishness of the U.N., which should stand for "Useless Nations."
- John Brown is a senior in political science at the University of Tennessee @ Knoxville. Contact him at johnnyb325@aol.com, or by visiting www.johnnorrisbrown.com. This column first appeared in the September 2, 2003, edition of The Daily Beacon (not online).