Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:56:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Daniel Flickinger <attila@hun.org> To: FreeBSD-CURRENT <current@freebsd.org> Subject: CNS: UN 'Dying a Slow Death,' Message-ID: <20030323055653.gJSP22019@hun.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
23 Mar 2003 <br>
CNSNews <br><b>
UN 'Dying a Slow Death,' Policy Expert Alleges </b><br>
The failure of the United Nations to take action against
Iraq, combined with President Bush's strong condemnation
of the Security Council, has left the international body
with little authority and in need of reform, according
to several policy experts. <p>
Although some members of the Bush administration were
suspicious of the United Nations even before taking
their case against Iraq to the Security Council,
relations are now likely to worsen, said Nile Gardiner,
an Anglo-American policy expert at the conservative
Heritage Foundation. <p>
"The United Nations had a final shot of redemption on
the Iraq question and they didn't take it," he said. "I
believe we are going to see increasing disengagement
from the U.N. process by the United States. The United
Nations is dying a slow death as a political
organization." <p>
In his speech Monday night, Bush recognized the 17
resolutions adopted by the United Nations on Iraqi
disarmament. He also chided the Security Council, which
never voted on an 18th resolution largely as a result of
France's promise to veto it. <p>
"The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to
its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours," Bush
told the nation. <p>
Although France placed the blame on the United States
and United Kingdom for failing to convince a majority of
the 15-member Security Council of Iraq's threats, some
observers said France's obstructionism was the root of
the problem. <p>
James Lindsay, deputy director and senior fellow at the
liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, said France's
terms for war remain unclear. Given those circumstances,
he said, the Bush administration should not be blamed
for failed diplomacy. <p>
"I don't think the French have covered themselves in the
glory on this issue," Lindsay said. "Was there ever a
set of circumstances under which Paris would have gone
to war? If the answer to that question is no, it really
doesn't matter what kind of diplomatic effort the Bush
administration made - it wasn't going to change the
outcome." <p>
France's refusal to go along with a U.S. plan to topple
Saddam Hussein has created a divisive "trans-Atlantic
rift" that is not likely to dissipate as long as Bush,
French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder remain in power, Lindsay
said. European and American businesses could suffer as a
result, he added. <p>
The rift could also signal dramatic changes for the
United Nations, said Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings
Institution foreign policy expert. He suggested that
discussions are likely to take place inside the Bush
administration about reforming the Security Council. <p>
Since its creation in 1946, the U.N. Security Council
has included five permanent members and 10 non-permanent
rotating countries. France, based on its global standing
following World War II, became a permanent member and
has veto power along with China, Russia, the United
Kingdom and the United States. <p>
O'Hanlon said France's membership on the Security
Council has been a long-running debate in academia, but
it could gain popularity given the deep divisions over
Iraq. Some scholars have suggested India would be better
suited for the role. <p>
"I would not be surprised if this administration, maybe
not right away, but early in a second term if it wins
re-election, thinks of reforming the basic structure of
the Security Council," O'Hanlon said. "The broader
question of how you dilute the power of France, which
has acted in an even more unilateralist way than the
Bush administration, has to be one that Washington wants
to consider." <p>
The United Nations still has a role with Iraq, just not
politically, Gardiner said. He would like to see the
body help rebuild Iraq. But he said France, Germany,
Russia, China or any other country that refused to
support an Iraq war should be excluded. <p>
"The French come out of this as the main villain,"
Gardiner said. "They have effectively wounded the United
Nations, endangered the future of NATO, they have
created a major trans-Atlantic rift and the French have
shamelessly appeased Saddam Hussein for the last two
decades." <p>
Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the
libertarian Cato Institute, said he disagrees with
Bush's approach to a war with Iraq, but he agrees with
the president's decision to move forward without backing
from the United Nations. He said if Bush has evidence
that Iraq poses a security risk, the matter should have
never gone to the Security Council. <p>
As a result, the United Nations stands weaker today,
which is not necessarily a bad thing, according to Pena. <p>
"The United Nations is relevant when the United States
or any other country wants it to be relevant for its own
political purposes," he said. "It is irrelevant whenever
it is convenient to ignore. That is how the United
Nations is treated because no country is ever going to
surrender its sovereignty to a super-national
organization." <p>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030323055653.gJSP22019>