How the UN Really Became Irrelevant

greyboi's picture

"When leaders speak of peace
The common folk know
That war is coming.
When the leaders curse war
The mobilization is already
written out."

-- Bertolt Brecht

On Sept. 12, 2002, President Bush appeared before the United Nations (UN) international body to inquire, "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?". Since then, such talk of (ir)relevance has been at the core of pro-war campaign rhetoric, demanding that the UN conform to Bush's plan for globalization, starting with Iraq, or be completely left out of the picture.

It appears that a boy emperor has taken his throne, and it is evident that he clearly refuses to give it up.

No one understood this early on in the game that his words would turn out to be more of a threat than an appeal to logic and reason. No one would have ever predicted that Bush would have

Most were actually pleased, like Dominique de Villepin, France's foreign minister, that Bush had resisted "the temptation for unilateral action" and had decided to go to the UN to resolve the conflict through peaceful means, or so it was thought. They apparently didn't realize that this was just a charade, that Bush himself was more than ready than ever to render the United Nations irrelevant.

Bush criticized the UN Security for not following up on Iraq when the country had already violated past UN resolutions, but Bush is quite selective in his demonization.

Iraq is not the only country to violate UN resolutions. And it certainly hasn't violated the most. That distinction belongs to Israel, which has violated thirty-two Security Council resolutions. Turkey has violated twenty-four. Morocco? Sixteen. By comparison, Iraq has only violated seventeen resolutions (Progressive Magazine, 4/03). Should our attention be elsewhere? Perhaps even on our "trusted" allies?

It is obviously apparent that since Israel, Turkey, and Morocco are US allies, Bush has not been urging the Security Council to make good on its word by threatening force on these countries. Why the exception with Iraq?

Human rights violations you say?

Iraq is not the only country to have human rights violations. We were all quite surprised to see that a country like Syria was heading the UN's Human Rights Committee. For some strange reason, the question was never raised as to whether or not we should invade Syria and implement "regime change". Still, one wonders why Iraq was not afforded this opportunity. Perhaps it was because Syria had a "better" history (and a higher body count). They just were more qualified for the job, and no one felt the need to initiate "preemptive strike" against them.

More than thirty times in the last seven months, Bush has used an odd nostalgic phrase about our oceans to depict America as made more vulnerable than it already has been:

"Before September the 11th, 2001, we thought the oceans would protect us forever." (Feb. 10, Nashville conference)

and...

"The world changed on September 11...In our country, it used to be that oceans could protect us--at least we thought so." (Feb. 10, press conference)

But, ever since Pearl Harbor, our oceans have proven that they are not an adequate buffer. Bush is clearly giving us an antiquated, erroneous description.

Why? Well it bears a politically motivated and uniquely hidden connotation, something like:

"We were safe, now we're in danger; this danger is so severe that you must give me all the power possible, without question. If you ask for a reason, or if your question my credibility, you are unpatriotic, anti-American, and a traitor to your country."

It may not seem like it at first, but that's all it comes down to.

One would be surprised to see what the U.N. Charter actually reads:

Article 2, Section 3, states, that "all members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means."

And Article 2, Section 4, states, "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial intergrity or political independence of any state."

Bush's entire campaign for "regime change", his mobilizing of more than 200,000 troops, and now the current use of force, which was preceded with countless threats, are in clear violation of this Charter.

But, the US does not need to UN to defend itself? Well, what does the Constitution say?

Article VI says that treaties are, "the supreme law of the land."

Bush is clealy violating the Constitution by trashing the United Nations.

guideingforce's picture

Well written, I'm going to pu

Well written, I'm going to put that in my lj.
You go greling!

TeeAhr1's picture

*applause*

Wow, do you do this for a living? If you don't, you should really consider it. Our country desperately needs people out there saying what you're saying, and apparently, we need to say it louder, because I don't think it's been getting through. I really like the quote you opened with, btw, I thought it very insightful given the goings-on of late.

I think the tragedy of it (well, one glaring tragedy among many, at any rate) is that the UN, or at least those members of the Security Council (what an ironic name) whose words have made so many headlines in the past months, don't really give two shits and a pickled fuck about Iraq or its people. Russia needs the oil contracts it's negotiated with Iraq, or its economy is going to tank even more than is currently the case. France is in this to score points off the United States, outmanouver Britain, and set itself up as the center of an 'opposition' bloc in the UN.

Where's the proof? I'm glad you asked. Turn on the television, CNN, Fox News, whatever your flavor. Go ahead, do it now, I'll wait. See any blue helmets? UN peacekeeping forces are in areas of the globe with far less "geopolitical importance" than Iraq right now. Now, of course, anyone who knows what they're talking about will immediately say that this is a hopelessly naive position, that international politics don't work like that, and that's true. But they damn well should.

TeeAhr1. Still hasn't found what he's looking for. Maybe it's under the couch...

greyboi's picture

Evidence? You must mean propaganda...

"Where's the proof? I'm glad you asked. Turn on the television, CNN, Fox News, whatever your flavor. Go ahead, do it now, I'll wait."

If you're asking me to spend another hour viewing pro-war, conservative propoganda, then you're talking to the wrong man. I get my news from more credible sources, like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and SD Union Tribue. I don't need to sift through hours of one-sided "debate" with Bill Orielly or turn it to "America's News Channel" (MSNBC). When the colors of your station are red, white, and blue (Fox News), it's a bit obvious you've got a pro-war, "patriotic" position.