The growing rift between the US and UN

By Carol Devine-Molin
web posted February 17, 2003

Rush Limbaugh sums it up very nicely in his February 14 piece entitled, "Mangy Cast Of UN Characters Display Their Irrelevance; Decimated By Secretary Powell", in which he states: "Powell hammered the wimp French and Syrian foreign ministers. They spoke prior to him and insulted the United States of America in general and Powell personally. Every speaker prior to the Secretary of State read from prepared comments, which they clearly prepared before Hans Blix issued his report. Secretary Powell spoke extemporaneously. The Secretary is interested in facts; everybody else involved was interested in "process." It's typical liberalism. Powell made it a point last week to establish a link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al-Qaeda; Blix and this waste of cheese from France, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, said that they don't believe Powell…The U.N. Security Council - with its Jabba the Hutt, its Trogdor and its various other Star Wars Cantina characters - is trying to lay a trap to delay Iraq's liberation under the guise that the inspections are making progress. The attention of the media and everybody else is wrongly focused. The onus is not on the United States to prove Saddam has WMD's. The UN placed the onus on Saddam to prove that the weapons we know he had at the end of the last inspections regime have been destroyed - period. The most surreal moment was Blix praising Iraqi "president" Hussein for decreeing a ban on making WMD's or importing stuff to do so. Great! Maybe tomorrow he'll ban dictatorships! These mop-haired diplomats are trying to make themselves seem relevant by standing up to the U.S. - even though they know they couldn't defend themselves against a troop of reasonably aggressive Girl Scouts."

Should we be surprised by the anti-war chorus that prevailed at the United Nations on February 14th? Or how about the poor treatment that Secretary of State Colin Powell suffered at the hands of the UN anti-American crowd? At this juncture, it's incontrovertible that the UN is attempting to thwart the US-led coalition to oust Saddam Hussein. America's ties with the UN have been slowly unraveling for quite some time, but recent events may very well hasten that erosion.

We are all aware that Secretary of State Colin Powell's impeccable reasoning and bedrock case for military intervention in Iraq were roundly rejected by the United Nations Security Council on February 14th. The UN delivered a churlish slap at an America that would ostensibly dare to go it alone against Iraq, an America guilty of the politically incorrect sin of "unilateralism". In truth, the US has significant international support on the Iraq initiative, including sixteen of the nineteen NATO members on board. But the UN temple of "multilateralism" does not take kindly to those that refuse to buckle under its auspices, especially the world's only superpower that is clearly poised to move forward with a "coalition of the willing" whether or not UN backing is forthcoming. Sure, there's talk of a second UN resolution being floated, a welcomed event that would certainly provide some cover for our staunch ally, beleaguered British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is already under siege among his fellow Britons for his stance on Iraq. But, if UN support for military action in Iraq fails to materialize, so be it.

The United Nation's reluctance to hold Iraq's feet to the fire is just more proof that this international forum is quickly losing its remaining credibility and relevance in today's world. The UN pleas for "containment" of Iraq through more inspectors and peacekeepers are utterly ridiculous and fly in the face of twelve years of Iraqi deceit and deception to undermine disarmament. Colin Powell's accurate assertion that inspections cannot succeed absent a cooperative and compliant Iraq was summarily dismissed by those resisting the notion of invasion and regime change. The United Nations conveniently refuses to acknowledge that this is really all about voluntary disarmament on the part of Iraq, rather than an ongoing search rife with Iraqi subterfuge and prevarication. While inspectors tarry, we could very well expect Saddam Hussein to be supplying terrorist proxies with his hidden weaponry. And, of course, the Iraqi people would continue to endure myriad human rights violations foisted upon them by their cruel leader. Well, the US will not acquiesce to the UN's position on Iraq since it's both disingenuous and preposterous.

President George W. Bush's approach for America is absolutely correct. Current circumstances make it abundantly clear - it's time for our nation to pursue our own vital interests even when we are not able to garner widespread international support. "Realpolitik" is at the forefront, and we must do what is right for America and our allies irrespective of opposing opinion. We were the ones that took the hit on September 11th, and we and our allies such as Britain, Australia and Israel continue to be at considerable risk by Saddam Hussein who has a long history of enmeshment and collaboration with various terrorist organizations. The confluence of a lunatic thug that hates America, possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction, and can easily pass them on to Jihadists, poses an unacceptable threat to our nation.

In a nutshell, Saddam Hussein must be removed forthwith, and the heck with any other nations that disapprove. Given the biological and chemical warfare suits/apparatus that that can only be donned by our troops during cool weather, there is only a small window of opportunity remaining this year in which to accomplish the invasion of Iraq. Let's do it now and get it over with -- If we delay, we only increase the probability that Saddam will effectively connive with his terrorist surrogates against us.

Currently, UN members appear to be dug-in and intractable on the matter of Iraq, but the shifting sands of international politics are underway. True, the contemptible French had no compunction about spanking our chief diplomat, Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the UN forum. And we will not forget that impertinence. But, unquestionably, the French want to ensure that their lucrative business dealings and oil contracts with Iraq remain in play despite Saddam's overthrow, so I have no doubt that they will ultimately hop on board the US-coalition train at the last moment. In the final analysis, other thoroughly hypocritical nations will do the same.

The United Nations has long been petty and unscrupulous. Never mind that that Saddam Hussein has systematically violated each and every UN Resolution since the end of the Gulf War, and continues to monstrously oppress his own people - that's not important to this international forum. What is important to the UN is absolutely perverse in nature and antithetical to the interests of sovereign states. Simply put, the agenda of the United Nation is now to emasculate sovereign states, especially the United States as superpower. The UN expects all nations to come under its domain and authority, so naturally a superpower such as the US must be cut down to size. President Bush is well aware of the UN's proclivities, and has stated categorically that he intends to protect Americans from the jurisdiction of the UN International Court, the one UN venue that does pose a significant threat to our citizenry at the present time. Sadly, any manner in which the UN can stymie or punish the US, and undercut its power, is considered a triumph by the UN. Moreover, it would be accurate to say that the United Nations is not only vicious, as aforementioned, but rather oddball as well. Within the United Nation's "Bizarro World", (where up is down, and down is up) Libya is scheduled to lead the UN Commission on Human Rights, while Iraq is due to head up the UN Conference on Disarmament. Yes, these picks are laughable and ironic, but actually consistent with the UN's ways.

Given the growing rift between the UN and the US, inevitably the US will seek to diminish its role within that international forum. Over time, America will forge new alliances that will be conducive to our needs and those of other nations, especially in relation to the "war on terrorism". The US must re-think its financial support of the UN, and under no circumstances should we subsidize UN plans for a new modern structure in New York City. In fact, many believe that the time has arrived for another nation, such as France or Germany, to host the worldwide headquarters of the United Nations. One thing I know for sure - the apparatchiks of the United Nations will miss NYC, which offers the best in cuisine, culture and entertainment.

Carol Devine-Molin is a regular contributor to several online magazines.

Printer friendly version

Send a link to this story

Home