Just say no to the UN

By Steve Farrell
web posted February 17, 2003

The United States ought to nip Saddam Hussein in the bud, right
now -- end of debate.

With these provisos:

* Our intent is a swift, crippling, absolute victory
* The United States fights its own battles -- with the aid, at the
most, of a temporary alliance of a few important friends (e.g., we
need Turkish airfields; we ought to arm Iraqi rebels).
* We resolve, here and now, to keep the hypocritical, terrorist-
sponsoring United Nations out of our war councils and her
occupying forces out of Iraq.
* After the war, we employ diplomacy, free trade, and short-
term relief efforts to set Iraq on a course toward self-sufficiency
and friendly relations with the United States.
* We stop framing the rationale for war in terms of Iraqi
violations of Security Council resolutions (decrees), and stick to
the only issue that legitimately is ours -- the security interests of
the United States of America and the offensive measures of Iraq
to undermine our security.

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.

* There are some who look upon war with Iraq, and most wars,
as a godsend to empower the United Nations.
* The United Nations pro-liberty record is appalling, to say the
least.
* The debate at the UN as to the justness of our cause has
created a grand opportunity for the world's worst enemies of
freedom to have a public forum to humiliate the United States
and inflame international sentiment against us.

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 stiffrightjab@yahoo.com.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com