> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:57:08 EDT
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [AfricaMatters] UN: Relevant or Not?
>
> PLEASE EXCUSE ANY CROSS-POSTINGS)
>
>
> Following FYI is an article pertaining to the important and relevant role
> of
> the UN, especially in dealing with the dangerous and tragic crisis
> unfolding
> in Iraq. In particular, there are several suggestions as to how the UN can
> be
> vital to the US and its allies in dealing with the post-military Iraq and
> in
> combatting terrorism. If you agree with these conclusions, please share
> the
> article with your friends, colleagues, and relatives.
>
> The entire article may be located at the Washington International website
> at
> <www.washingtoninternational.com.> An abbreviated version of this article
> appeared in the Frankfort (Kentucky) State Journal, and will appear in
> other
> publications.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Miller
>
> "UN: Even More Relevant and Responsible"
> by Bill Miller
> <www.washingtoninternational.com>
>
> President Bush scored dramatic victories at the UN when he challenged
> the world body to enforce its resolutions against Saddam Hussein, and when
> he
> unexpectedly secured the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1441,
> requiring that UN weapons inspectors be allowed back into Iraq. Since those
> landmark accomplishments, the US has been on a downhill slide that may bode
> ill for a protracted campaign against terrorism.
>
> The US, arguably with the best-trained, funded, and most professional
> military in the world, has invaded Iraq. What led up to this drastic
> action?
> What major problems have arisen because of it? How can the US and the UN
> develop a strategy that will effectively re-build Iraq, as well as deal
> with
> other international threats, such as terrorism or North Korea with nuclear
> capabilities?
>
> President Bush was correct to push for disarming Iraq of weapons of
> mass destruction (WMD), and he was strongly supported for doing so.
> Unfortunately, a disconnect developed between stating a laudable goal and
> implementing it. The US failed to convince the world that Saddam should be
> overthrown and Iraq occupied. Major missteps occurred because the US used
> some circumstantial, bogus, and uncorroborated evidence of WMD activity in
> Iraq. The US unsuccessfully attempted to link Saddam with the 9-11 tragedy,
> as well as undermined the UN inspection process by not sharing information,
> ridiculing the inspection process, and not allowing sufficient time for
> inspections.
>
> Just imagine if the US, rather than issuing unrealistic deadlines
> and
> demands, had taken the tack of a gradual military buildup in Iraq through
> 2003, thus continuing to pressure Saddam; giving the Security Council and
> inspectors more time than was requested; and selecting a final deadline of
> January 2, 2004, to complete the inspections-with the ultimate threat of
> military action as a last resort. Although France and Russia have economic
> interests and historical ties with Iraq, they would have been pressured to
> accept this reasonable plan. Instead, the US became impatient with the UN,
> balked at the Security Council debates, built an international coalition,
> and
> took unprecedented military action by invading a country that had not
> directly attacked the US.
>
> The US has cobbled together a Potemkin Coalition of 45 or so
> countries that appear powerful in numbers, but, after looking behind the
> façade, is really a group of economic and military lightweights, except for
> Australia and Britain. The coalition will offer little military support to
> fight in Iraq and minuscule financial assistance to pay the projected $200
> billion to $1.8 trillion cost of the war and occupation, 90% which will be
> borne by the American taxpayer, according to many experts. Most of the
> coalition leaders are in a Catch-22 since their citizens (as did most
> Americans until the invasion began) oppose armed intervention without UN
> authorization. Yet, this coalition is led primarily by "political elites"
> that do not reflect the democratic will of the vast majority of their
> citizens.
>
> Another more devastating and worrisome development is the massive
> negative international public opinion emerging against the US. Overseas,
> US
> governmental policies have reached an all-time low. Polls show the bulk of
> the world views the US as an imperialistic, hegemonic aggressor stealing
> Iraqi oil, ignoring international law (which it has done in violation of
> Article 51 of the UN Charter), and illegally deposing Saddam Hussein (who
> is
> not highly-regarded even among Iraqis nor people opposing the US).
>
> Two "shock and awe" campaigns are presently underway: a military one
> in
> Iraq and the other consisting of how disdained US foreign policy is viewed
> overseas. A tsunami wave of opposition is racing at incredible speed
> worldwide and is potentially damaging to the campaign on terrorism because
> the US needs strong international cooperation and coordination to combat Al
> Qaeda and other foes. Also, at some point, this immense reservoir of
> resentment may be transferred to how foreigners deal with American
> businesspeople, tourists, and students abroad.
>
> To compound the negative perception held by many foreigners, many of
> the media joined the Bush Administration in demonizing and vilifying
> anyone,
> especially the French, who did not agree with them. When Congressman
> Representative Bob Ney, (R-Ohio) lobbied to have "French fries" changed to
> "Freedom fries" in the House of Representatives Dining Room, a poignant
> message reverberated worldwide reminding foreigners of the "Ugly American"
> from the 1950s who was caricatured as uninformed and incompetent in dealing
> with foreigners and insensitive to their concerns.
>
> Not to be an apologist for French intransigence, but how would
> Americans have reacted if the French had led a boycott against American
> goods
> and products when the Bush Administration arrogantly and arbitrarily
> undertook unpopular policies and thumbed its nose at the world? For
> example,
> when the US boycotted the Kyoto Global Warming Protocol, aggressively
> undermined the International Criminal Court (which now could be helpful in
> prosecuting an international criminal, such Saddam), and, potentially
> fueled
> the nuclear arms race by withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile
> Treaty with Russia.
>
> The most recent foreign policy faux pas included scuttling an
> agreement
> whereby poor countries could buy generic drugs to combat AIDs and other
> diseases that are destroying their societies, as well as wrecking a global
> health agreement to reduce tobacco consumption worldwide.
>
> Some of the ironies of the Administration's policies are that
> eliminating Saddam may not reduce terrorism because Osama bin Laden and Al
> Qaeda will more easily recruit Islamic fundamentalists as terrorists, the
> UN
> will emerge stronger than before; and, while the US is still the military
> and
> economic superpower, France has been elevated internationally as the moral
> superpower because of its David vs. Goliath stance at the UN.
>
> What can be done to stem the negative perception of the US,
> develop a comprehensive strategy with the UN to confront major
> international
> challenges, and win the campaign against terrorism, which is really the
> ultimate goal? For starters, the US should:
>
> ---involve the UN immediately (which President Bush has mentioned doing) ,
> especially in the area of social and humanitarian programs, in the
> re-building of Iraq;
>
> ---work to repair the tattered relations with the French, Russians, and
> Germans, who will be absolutely critical in confronting future economic,
> terrorism and security issues. Iraq is just a blip on the radar screen in
> the
> anti-terrorism campaign. International cooperation is absolutely critical
> to
> hammer out an effective strategy to deal with Iran and North Korea, both of
> which pose a greater danger to the US than does Iraq;
>
> ---highlight America's right to self-defense and drop this incendiary
> "pre-emptive strike" policy which is in violation of the UN Charter and
> international law. If the US can launch a pre-emptive strike, why can't
> North
> Korea attack South Korea, or India attack Pakistan if they feel
> threatened?;
>
> ---realize that the UN is still the US's number 1 international ally. UN
> agencies are vital to combat terrorism in many ways, such as moving
> aircraft,
> ships, and mail (without anthrax) safely around the world. Also, all of the
> 30 plus UN agencies are of great assistance to the US in achieving its
> foreign policy goals, such as combating environmental degradation and
> fighting diseases, curbing the flow of illegal drugs, promoting
> international
> trade and economic development, and enhancing human rights.
>
> The recent "food fight" at the UN Security Council vividly shows how
> countries and leaders can be childish, immature, and often lose sight of
> the
> "big picture." The UN is much broader than one resolution on how to disarm
> Iraq. Fantasies of abandoning the rule of law, going-it-alone, and
> forsaking
> the ONLY international organization that brings the countries of the world
> together to resolve their problems, is sheer folly. The UN, although it has
> shortcomings, is still the only game in town, and there is no better
> alternative.
>
> Today, even with the bickering at the Security Council, the UN has
> proven to be more responsible and relevant than at any point during its
> 58-year history, and it will not follow in the footsteps of its
> predecessor,
> the failed League of Nations. The only sustainable, heavily supported, and
> pragmatic "road map to peace" that President Bush correctly touts, be it
> in
> North Korea or the Middle East, runs directly through the UN.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
