Bush Strikes out at UN
Vol: 24 Issue: 24 Wednesday, September 24, 2003
President Bush laid out the US case for increasing global involvement in pacifying Iraq and restoring security to the region. Noting that “the deadly combination of outlaw regimes, terror networks and weapons of mass destruction is a peril that cannot be ignored or wished away,” he challenged the Security Council to adopt a resolution that would criminalize the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The president also pointed out that the fall of Saddam Hussein creates a new opportunity to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Instituting democracy in Iraq, the president told the UN, will set an example which the Palestinians would do well to follow. Along those lines, the president was blistering in his criticism of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and his continuing support for terrorism: “The Palestinian cause is betrayed by leaders who cling to power by feeding old hatreds, and destroying the good work of others.”
The president s rejection of a speedy transfer of power to Iraqis drew criticism at home and abroad, with world leaders and nearly all his Democratic presidential rivals accusing Bush of being responsible for the postwar difficulties in bypassing the United Nations to launch the war that ousted Saddam Hussein.
Unfortunately, what is good for the Iraqi people, and ESPECIALLY what is good for the United States, is not high on the UN’s agenda. Instead, Iraq is little more than a convenient excuse for the global superpower wannabes to stick a thumb in Uncle Sam’s eye.
French president Jacques Chirac took his turn on the podium to continue advancing the fiction that the US invasion of Iraq was a ‘unilateral’ action, ignoring the other forty countries that were part of the coalition. Chirac continued to advance his case that the US occupation of Iraq end virtually immediately, turning authority over to Iraqis, who the French can then move in and ‘assist’ — giving France control of how the reconstruction contracts and oil leases are apportioned.
“The war launched without Security Council authorization shook the multilateral system. … No one can act alone in the name of all, and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules.”
What ‘shook the mulilateral system’ wasn’t the US invasion of Iraq, it was the UN’s refusal to honor its own threats for twelve years, exacerbated by French and German oppostition in the Security Council. Both France and Germany were reaping huge profits from back-channel deals with Saddam Hussein that they didn’t want to see go away with Saddam.
The reason they feared losing their contracts under a new Iraqi government is because the deals were so heavily slanted in favor of them and against the Iraqis. No longer under the restrictions imposed on the Saddam regime by UN sancions, the Iraqis would be free to pursue honest deals — something Paris and Berlin were determined to prevent.
Thanks to the US liberation of Iraq, the UN’s unaudited control of the Iraqi Oil for Food program vanished with the French/German deals. Kofi Annan lost access to a slush fund of more than $13 billion, out of which, the UN retained a substantial percentage in ‘handling fees.’
In opening Tuesday s General Assembly meeting, Annan warned that the U.S. doctrine of pre-emptive military intervention posed a fundamental challenge to the organization and could lead to a global free-for-all.
(Unlike the stability that the UN brought to the Koreas, to Somalia, Rwanda, and the Baltic States, together with body counts that even Saddam couldn’t surpass.)
He said the U.N. Charter allowed military action for the purpose of self-defense, but until now, it has been understood that when states go beyond that and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.
France regularly sends its forces into former colonial holdings in Africa — complete with guns — and doesn’t bother the UN with the details. And the UN doesn’t ask. When did the French seek authorization to intervene in Sierra Leone?
Despite the optimistic pronouncements from the administration in the days leading up to the UN speech, it was obvious that it was falling on deaf ears before he had even taken his seat.
There was an atmosphere of ‘don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up’ and nothing Bush could say would have changed it.
Chirac, in his speech, told the Assembly, “The war launched without Security Council authorization shook the multilateral system. … No one can act alone in the name of all, and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules.”
Chirac is correct. America acted in the name of ‘freedom loving nations’ and the UN is the epitome of a society without rules. And the war in Iraq has exposed an unaccepable level of anarchy within the United Nations itself. Remember this is a group currently headed by Syria who just offered a resolution demanding the UN extend an umbrella of global protection over Yasser Arafat, the father of modern terrorism, while accusing Israel of being a terrorist state — and only four countries disagreed!
The UN cannot act alone (or in concert with anyone else, other than the French) in the name of all.
It can’t act at all.
First, forgive me for being late with this morning’s Omega Letter. (The time zone change threw me, I’ll be ok tomorrow)
We arrived in Texas in the early afternoon. Wylie and I talked well past my normal bedtime (well past his) and have barely begun to scratch the surface. I pray that each of you, at some time, get the chance the Lord afforded me. There are few friendships that can survive the test of time. And there is no joy like a reunion.
The Bible says that Jesus is a ‘Friend that sticketh closer than a brother’ and Paul promises us a joyful reunion with the one friendship that exists outside of time and space.
The day is coming — maybe soon — when another reunion will take place, between our Lord and His bride.
As I was reading over the various speeches from the UN, it grows painfully obvious that the United Nations, as we know it, has a terminal disease. It will die, and something will replace it.
The Bible says that it is the same European superstate that has empowered Jacques Chirac to finish driving the final nails into its coffin.
My reunion with my old partner was joyous. The anticipation grew as each mile marker flew by, but the actual reuion exceeded my anticipation.
As I was driving along, watching the mile markers, I couldn’t help but equate them to the spiritual mile markers that anticipate the reunion between Christ and His Bride.
As I crossed the Arkansas border, I knew that soon, I would arrive at my destination, and the reunion I had been anticipating for twelve hundred miles.
Watching the UN’s continuing effort to unravel itself gives me that same feeling of anticipation.