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