> ---------- 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~