War advocates are loudly complaining about the United Nations, which they allege stands in the way of a justified American attack on Iraq. Some say the United States should ignore the U.N. and act without approval. And yet, much of the U.S. case for war against Iraq hinges on Saddam Husseins violations of United Nation resolutions. The irony is crystal clear: while many American hawks holler about Saddams disregard for the UN, they would like to see the United States itself disregard the UNall with the paradoxical goal of upholding UN authority and legitimacy.
These hawks also seem to ignore episodes of U.S. defiance of the U.N., such as failures even to pay its dues. The United States even worked with the Soviet Union to shield Iraq from U.N. censure concerning one of Iraqs most egregious violations of international law, its use of chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s.
The hawks double standard is clearer when we consider that some hawks dont think the United States should even be in the U.N.though the U.S. should presumably enforce its resolutions.
And then we have the doves. Many of them argue that the United States should let the UN inspections work, and that if the U.S. acts against Iraq without U.N. approval, it will in itself be in contempt of international law.
And yet, many of these same pro-United Nations doves have for years protested the U.N. sanctions against Iraq, which they claim have killed over one million innocent Iraqis. Such an atrocity should disrupt the doves belief in the righteousness of the U.N. as the sine qua non of freedom and justice.
So we have those who now denounce the UN for not allowing the United States to enforce its resolutions; they hate the UN but selectively embrace its decrees. And we have anti-war folks who applaud the UN for slowing down the war efforteven as they mourn the hundreds of thousands of casualties they attribute to its sanctions.
And what would happen if the UN Security Council gives in, and approves of a war on Iraq?
If this happens, the war advocates will again hail the UN as an international community on the side of justiceand the doves who relied on the UN to prevent military action will quietly swallow their disappointment.
The United Nations is no flawless organization, no paragon of truth, no exemplary model for national foreign policies. It is a coalition of governmentseach with its own priorities and politically motivated agendas. Its hypocritical and foolish for those who once decried the UN to use its resolutions to justify war with Iraqor for antiwar activists to rely on the UN to bring about peace and justice in a region they believe has suffered the worst of UN policy: mass starvation from sanctions.
Instead of hiding behind the rhetoric of U.N. consensus building, we should support or oppose the war on the basis of national security and global stability.
For the doves, this means Bushs potential disregard for the UN ceases to hold any merit as an argument against war. For the hawks, it means that Saddams past disregard for the UN fails as an argument for it.
|Anthony Gregory is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. His articles have appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, San Diego Union-Tribune, Portland Oregonian (AZ), Contra Costa Times, The Star (Chicago, IL), Washington Times, Salt Lake Tribune, Tallahassee Democrat, Albany (NY) Times Union, Raleigh News and Observer, Florida Today, and other newspapers.|
THE POWER OF HABEAS CORPUS IN AMERICA: From the Kings Prerogative to the War on Terror
As perhaps the most important legal protection, habeas corpus has a rich history from medieval England to modern America involving opportunistic power plays, political hypocrisy, ad hoc jurisprudence, and many failures in effectively securing individual liberty.