HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/30_09_02_d.htm The Daily Star September 30, 2002 Can United Nations survive Gulf crisis? Abdelwahab El-Affendi -In other words, the UN is doomed to irrelevance in any case. If it rubberstamps Bush�s war, it loses its character as a multilateral body. If not, it will be ignored. -The Bush administration seems unable to understand it was not Iraqi soldiers who flew planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. And there is no escaping the fact that Washington�s systematic policy of making all states in the Middle East �- except Israel �- irrelevant created the conditions for terrorist activists. If the US continues along the same road and decides to make irrelevant every other state in the world, as well as the collective will of all states as embodied (however imperfectly) in the UN as well, then the �war on terror� could simply become Bush�s war against the planet. Immediately after the announcement of his appointment as the new Archbishop of Canterbury last July, Dr. Rowan Williams declared his opposition to war on Iraq. The incoming leader of the Church of England told a press conference in London that he was not going to support military action unless the United Nations backed it. Earlier, the incoming Archbishop had joined 2,500 Christian leaders in signing a petition condemning any proposed attack on Iraq as �immoral and illegal.� The petition, handed to the British government on Aug. 6 (coincidentally, the anniversary of the Hiroshima bomb) said it was �deplorable that the world�s most powerful nations continue to regard war and the threat of war as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy, in violation of the ethos of the UN and Christian moral teaching.� The categorical tone of the petition contrasted sharply with Williams�s own conditional offer of support for UN-backed war. This prompted at least one columnist to chastize the Archbishop for this apparent inconsistency. If a certain act is immoral, how could the UN Security Council make it morally acceptable to the extent that the Church would support it? And is it the duty of leaders like the Archbishop to offer moral guidance, or should they await UN guidance? The way many world leaders have been shifting responsibility for a decision on the Iraq issue toward the UN creates the impression that the world body is a sort of oracle that possesses answers for difficult moral questions. However, all leaders know that the UN is nothing but the sum of its parts. Its decisions are usually taken with the interests of the most powerful members in mind, and plenty of bullying and bribes are involved. In other words, the ways of the UN are often immoral. How can such an organization then be expected to give moral leadership to Archbishops about what is legitimate or not? Having persuaded US President George W. Bush to do the same and ask the UN oracle for answers, few were surprised when the president arrived in New York with his answers already prepared. At least here is one man who seeks no guidance and offers plenty of it. Bush told the UN to rise to the challenge and �deal with Saddam.� (It is significant the way a whole country is reduced to one man. It is Saddam Hussein who is being punished, bombed and fought.) And if the UN does not act, the US will do so on its own. In other words, if the UN does not read back to Bush the answers he had dictated to it, he is going to do it anyway. The UN, in sum, must act as a rubber-stamp to the US government, or risk irrelevance. Speaking to the US Congress a week later, Secretary of State Colin Powell extolled the virtues of his boss. �The president�s speech was powerful,� Powell intoned. �I could see the energy in the room as he delivered it. It energized the United Nations General Assembly and � changed the political landscape on which this issue was being discussed. It made it clear that Iraq is the problem. Iraq is the one that is in material breach of the demands placed on it by this multilateral organization, the UN.� But it soon became clear that America was no less intent than Iraq in defying the UN if the organization refused to do Bush�s bidding. Powell made it clear that his administration �believes (America�s) interests are threatened even if the UN has not continued to come to that conclusion.� And if the UN �is not able to act and act decisively � and I think that would be a terrible indictment of the UN � then the United States will have to make its own decision as to whether the danger posed by Iraq is such that we have to act in order to defend our country and to defend our interests.� In other words, the UN is doomed to irrelevance in any case. If it rubberstamps Bush�s war, it looses its character as a multilateral body. If not, it will be ignored. And Powell made it plain he means business when he cited Iraqi criticism of the Bush speech and its demand for respect of international law as a sign that Iraq was not serious about complying with UN resolutions. It appears that dissenting with Bush and calling for respect of international law are nowadays very serious crimes. The Bush administration, while making a great fuss about the threat Iraq poses, made it obvious it was not going to be satisfied even if Iraq were to be completely disarmed, raising a host of other issues as well. As one British correspondent put it after listening to Bush�s Sept. 12 speech � �short of shaving his mustache and joining the Girl Guides, nothing Saddam would do is going to satisfy demands Bush has put.� It would appear then that it is not Saddam who is intent on making the UN irrelevant, but the other �great leader� in Washington. And that would be the most dangerous thing to do. The Bush administration seems unable to understand it was not Iraqi soldiers who flew planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. And there is no escaping the fact that Washington�s systematic policy of making all states in the Middle East � except Israel � irrelevant created the conditions for terrorist activists. If the US continues along the same road and decides to make irrelevant every other state in the world, as well as the collective will of all states as embodied (however imperfectly) in the UN as well, then the �war on terror� could simply become Bush�s war against the planet. By infuriating everyone, from former South African President Nelson Mandela to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the Bush administration is making too many enemies. Soon there could well be German, French and African suicide bombers venting their frustration against the �bully on the block.� Provoking such hostility does not look like the wisest thing to do. Not from where we are standing. Abdelwahab El-Affendi is a senior research fellow at the Center for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
