catapult magazine

In the past debate of the UN vs the US over what to do about Iraq, I sometimes hear people say (write) that the US failed to convince the UN of the need to take quick, decisive action against Iraq. I see the problem to be mainly in the UN.

Iraq was a problem almost of Hitler/Stalin magnitude (as it relates to its thousands and thousands mass murdered—-to the smaller but no less ghastly number of young women raped/murdered by Uday or by Saddam’s professional rapists, to the thousands tortured for doing what I am doing here…engaging in normal dialogue, maybe criticism.)

And sooner or later, Saddam would have put out evil in t he form of missiles loaded with—-who knows what—-against Israel, against another Arab nation that crossed it, and (if they would get long range technology) even against their ancient foe, Europe. (Some terrorists or militants here & there still refer to Europe as “the Crusaders”, as did Osama in a tape where he was supporting the “socialist” i.e. Saddam.. )

Maybe you or I do not like the exact solution to Iraq presently enactedby t he US. Maybe we both wish the UN had also helped “put the hammer” on Iraq.

SO WHY CAN’T THE UN RECOGNIZE THE BLATANT, OVER THE TOP DICTATORS EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE TROUNCED UN RESOLUTIONS MANY A TIME???

EVEN WHEN THE MASS MURDERER HAS STEPPED OVER MANY A LINE THE UN HAS DRAWN IN THE SAND???

Maybe the UN doesn’t know how to tell a mass murdering over- the-top dictator from—-one of its own members???

My suggestion perhaps comes too late:

Only those nations which fit in the general confines of the Declaration of Human Rights are allowed to vote & make decisions and serve on human rights committees or on any committees.

Any nation blatantly violating the Declaration loses its vote; committee seats.

In Indiana early in the 20th Century, many politicians wre"in bed" with t he KKK. Shall we say that human rights enforcement for those targeted by the KKK during that era were less than fair? Perhaps almost nonexistent?

So it is with the UN.

If a crisis does not step on the toes of any major human rights violater (Sudan comes to mind) yes, the UN can do a great job.

Any other ways to reform the UN???

The UN does not exist to enact regime changes. The UN charter is clear that it recognizes the sovereignty of states. In fact, most Americans would not want a UN with the kind of power to invade countries with bad governments, unless it were to be a lacky of the US. Because Americans are so very keen on their own sovereignty, the idea that another government out there might have jurisdiction over it is just too much to swallow. Do you really want an effective UN? Because that would mean making the United States and other governments subservient to it.

As far as the Hussein-Hitler-Stalin comparison, I just don’t get it. Hitler was systematically killing Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies. At least 10 million dead. He started a war that killed another few million and left Europe in shambles. Stalin probably killed 30 million and managed to nearly eradicate traditional Russian culture.

Iraq doesn’t even have that many people living in it. Hussein was a bad dictator with bad intentions, but he was a puny little guy, not at the helm of Germany or Russia. He killed thousands of his own people, and started a war with Iran that the US was more than happy about. His sons did bad things and his people suffered.

Now, if that qualifies as reason for a UN invasion let’s see which other countries we’re going to have to invade. Humm. Burma (at least Saddam encouraged people to get an education—in Burma they are keeping people ignorant and killing the ones who refuse to remain so), Indonesia, Sudan (I might even agree with a regime change here), North Korea (if they’re not a threat, who is?), Liberia (for sure), Zimbabwe, and Turkmenistan (their dictator recently renamed the months of the year, one of them after himself). And 25 years ago we should have all been scrambling to invade Chile, Cambodia, China, South Africa, and Albania.

Just be careful what you’re asking for. Do you really want a powerful UN? Do you really want to invade every country with horrible governments? I doubt it. Sounds more like what you’re doing is justifying US action in Iraq, which you’re welcome to do. Let’s just call it what it is.

I am assuming you see the UN as more or less doing what it is supposed to do. And you do not see the need for major change.

There, I disagree. Others here and elsewhere have cited info which shows how some of the really bad over-the-top abusive nations get on UN human rights committees…etc.

Your second and third paragraphs talk about the #s massmurdered under Hitler and Stalin versus the #s mass murdered under Saddam. Millions versus thousands. (Note that amongst the millions Hitler murdered were included Christians who stood up for others, and Christians who refused to go along with the paganizing of the Church. Also murdered were many mentally/physically handicapped.) Is there a threshhold where mass murder can be ignored? Note: in theory, the UN had Saddam in a corner because he broke several UN resolutions. Thus there was increased moral authority to act than against a nation which hadn’t directly defied UN resolitions.)

And another key difference to day is that tiny, easy-to-make, easy-to-hide, easy-to-move but deadly WMD technology, attested to by a multitude of different witnesses, and a multitude of cumulative bits of evidence means t hat a small evil guy like Saddam can possibly wreak large scale havoc (i.e. as he did when gassing Kurds).

This is a major paradigm shift in the world. The small guy, with the right small, nasty stuff, can wreak massive death and destruction.

I wish to note that the League of Nations, the predecessor to the UN, failed to condemn or act (within whatever limited powers it too had) against another dictator who broke the treaty his government had signed. (Hitler—-rearming. A clear violation of the Versailles treaty.)

Did the League of Nations have invasion power?

Probably not… But there is something to be said for focusing the world spotlight on a rogue nation…

Within its limited powers, the League could have joined Churchill and the few other “pariahs” of the mid to late 1930’s, and could have spoken out long and loud against Hitler and focused attention on the couple of early atrocities that were starting to leak out.

(I read in 1930’s pre WWII microfiche news articles about the persecution of Christians, for example, in Germany. And news of the persecution of Jews was starting to get out, tho hindered by a world with a big anti-Semitic mindset. )

And you list other nations doing evil deeds..Sudan has a pile of mass murdered in the millions. .

Surely, the UN could at least expel the representatives of said nations (or, ideally, it would be good to remove their vote had they built that right into their charter and member ship requirements!!!).

The UN could call for public shunning and refusal to trade with them. Doesn’t mean they can enforce it, but they can put the world’s attention on the really bad, evil nations. The world really reacted against apartheit in S. Africa. Surely that made a difference.

Do I want a UN with lots of teeth? No. I still believe power should not be centralized. The UN right now seems as morally clueless as the League of Nations.

Look how even one voice (Alexander Solzhenitsyn comes to mind) can shake things up???

Hear, hear! (to dan’s post)

Vanlee, but weapons of mass destruction still haven’t been found in Iraq. The fact is that there was really not that much of a threat to the US coming from Iraq. All the “evidence” was either outdated or based on faulty intelligence (or something else went wrong because despite the desperate searching, there are simply no WMD in Iraq). The recent yellow cake scandal suggests something a lot more serious than that particular incident. It suggests that there were other motives for wanting to attack Iraq. The Bush Administration wanted to go to war as quickly as possible and told the public over and over again that the primary reason was because Saddam had WMD. They were so sure that Saddam posed an imminent threat that they were willing to bypass the UN to get their war. Now remember, once again, that the main reason for attacking was for our own security; ie. WMD. Now that argument is being highly questioned. So if there were never any WMD to begin with, what did the US want so badly as to make up evidence of them to be able to attack Iraq?

So continuing to rant about how evil Saddam was and comparing him to Stalin and Hitler just avoids the real issue. Nobody disputes the fact that Saddam was not a good leader, maybe even evil. That’s why Bush kept using this “argument” and was therefore able to get so much of the public behind him. The real question is, was it right of the US to attack Iraq without the backing of the UN and when there were clearly no weapons threat? I think NO. And I think it’s shameful of the Bush administration to claim now that WMD (the nasty stuff) isn’t even an issue anymore.

Ah yes, I forgot Israel. If anyone has broken UN rules it is Israel. I know this is complicated by the fact that the palestinians haven’t been nice either, but I remember seeing a long list of Israeli infractions against UN resolutions regarding its human rights record, nuclear program, chemical weapons research, illegal occupation…. Now I’m not particularly anti-Israeli. I just want to show that the UN may exert diplomatic and economic pressure, but invasion isn’t generally considered for those reasons.

And I’m not sure invasion should be considered, just because someone disobeys the UN. If so, Canada is going to have to ready itself for a surprise regime change and invasion of a southern neighbour which routinely practices the death penalty, doesn’t pay its UN dues, and invades countries ‘preemptively’, all of which violate UN resolutions. And frankly, I don’t think the Canadian military could get much past the boundary waters.

I got a message from jo to my email which says that the question I asked …

was not my real question
nor my real agenda:

“Author: jo
Date: 8/14/2003 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: How to design a better UN???

Hear, hear! Now if we all agree that this thread is really about whether US was right/wrong in invading Iraq, well, I for one will continue to say it was wrong wrong wrong. "

As I am the one who asked the question, I have to tell you….one of my “rants” has been about the UN…well before the new Iraq situation has come up. Thus, I had no secret agenda. Were I to debate the war, I would clearly state that in my question. (Eisegesis here.)

And my basic objections are shared by those who question the UN’s moral authority when it seems to be “in bed” with so many very bad nations.

The UN (like every other human institution on the planet) is made up of human beings. No human being or group of human beings is infallible. All should be questioned & held to standards. Neither the UN nor the US Supreme Court, nor any nation (the US, Iraq, Israel, etc) are infallible. All should be questioned.

Or…maybe I really have major oil stock & somehow hope that a war with Iraq will increase my $$$? (Not!) The only oil around me is on my hands—-from oiling my daughter’s cornet.

And let’s not be too hasty to close the WMD book.

No, there has not been what the media or others wanted…a big “smoking gun”.

But we have the testimony of many others… including some Democrats (Bill Clinton for one), some of the UN inspectors (for instance one man who figured out Iraq had more anthrax than it could use in normal research for 20 years), some of the escaped scientists, some intelligence reports and some captured smaller items (such as the portable lab trucks).

I have read or heard various of the interviewees above (maybe so have some of you); I have also heard the detractors (as have some of you).

We live in an instant society. But maybe on WMD—-we should wait a little longer. It’s critical to resolve this—-for a reason more important than this war even—-again, we have a *major paradigm shift*.

Instead of the blitzkrieg (Nazis) or Pearl Harbor (Japanese) where only the nations with lots of traditional weapons can attack—-where one knows where the big battles are (basically)—-we have small, easy to move, not that hard to create smaller weapons.

One truckload of anthrax (indeed one coffeecan of anthrax dispersed from a taxi in, say, in downtown Chicago) could cause millions of dollars in biohazard cleanup, possible medical claims, etc. And millions in the intangible of fear too to the stock market, economic confidence…

So do we want to walk away from the WMD search concerning Saddam yet? Saddam seems remarkably like the Hydra of mythology.

The thing I don’t like (and we need to figure out new paradigms for how we decide where to fight this new kind of war & enemy) is the heavier reliance on behind the scenes intelligence. (which is by its nature, less conclusive than being run over by a blitzkrieg or a Pearl Harbor bombing).

I read thru some of the gov sites and the CIA.gov site which have more analysis (along with some news sites) on all the kinds of smaller, deadly technologies available & how they could be used…Interesting reading.

I like the clear cut better than the slightly grayed, especially when it comes to fight or not fight. But we are in shifting paradigms (as I’ve also heard/read). And I don’t offer any easy answers because Idon’t know what they would be. And there are new dangers.

Agreed. The threat is different now. The disagreement is whether occupying hostile countries makes things better or worse. That has yet to be seen.

Most likely a first year
political schence student…
a first year war college officer…
and a first year history student will have the longer historical perspective and be able to look back at this era (which some say started 8-10 years ago with smaller terrorist attacks on the US) and say
*This specific action we took was wise
*This other action we took—-well, was not wise.
***And here’s how we handle this new kind of war now…
I read that **past*** paradigm shifts in how war is fought included the transition (at least in Europe) from well-announced declarations of war—-then attack—-
to the blitzkrieg/Pearl Harbor surprise attack.( with declarations of war following).

eVen our Revolutionary War was a beginning paradigm shift from soldiers standing in bright, shiny uniforms shooting at each other…to the dull-clothed “shoot behind trees, etc”. the US soldiers adapted from Native Americans.

We can react strongly for or against this Pres. & his staff. But in the long run 2-6 years from now, how will we the US and the WORLD as a whole handle the ongoing threat?
But fortheworld’s sake, I wish the UN would reform itself. I’d love to hear most delegates give their definitions of what they consider “good” or “evil” or “dubious” in the world today.

I suspect the answers would diverge widely (Which would be why the UN has trouble really standing for anything.)

I mainly asked this question because sometimes I sense as I read various things on the Internet or hear the news, that the UN is a kind of final authority. Not to be questioned.

My motto to life is something like this “I trust in God. All others pay cash (i.e. are to be questioned)>”

Seeing that the UN is a global agency, supposedly representing the interests of the whole world, what do you think it should stand for? Some things all deligates will be able to agree on: Poverty is bad. War is bad. Stuff like that. What specifically do you think they should agree on that they don’t?

But try to imagine a UN that uniformly agrees on how to deal with something as complex and ambiguous as Iraq. The only way it could happen is if some leader or some superpower is calling the shots. I don’t want a UN like that. vanlee or anyone else, have you got any specific suggestions on how to reform the UN to make it more effective without making it more American?

I don’t see the UN as the highest moral authority, but it is the best international ‘democratic’ body that we have. It is a place for dialogue between nations. Its agencies also provide aid, education, birth control, global statistics, peacekeeping, etc. But the world is a diverse place, so as long as Turkey’s views are considered just as important as Thailand’s views, you’re going to have disagreement. When the disagreement stops…that’s when I’ll be worried.

One complaint I don’t hear about the UN here is that it was so weak it was unable to stop the US and Britain from invading and occupying Iraq without UN approval. That’s pretty pathetic don’t you think? Why can’t those silly deligates get their act together and slap sanctions on those rogues?

All of these—the complaint about its treatment of Israel, the U.S., Britain and the Iraq situation—are good indications that the U.N. is too weak to do what many have hoped it would do.

I wonder if the U.N. has always been and will continue to be undermined by nationalism. Even though nationalism was the context in which the U.N. was called into being as a necessity for international security, the U.N. is constantly shown to be second-best to the interests of “the nation”. And it won’t be so easy to convince all these nations that nations aren’t “where it’s at”. That will take a global spiritual movement. The nationalistic establishing of nations has been going on for several hundred years and people still believe (look at the plan to establish a Palestinian nation) this is the best possible way of finding solutions to conflicts, even though history shows that it causes conflicts too. The U.N. will continue to be weak as long as the interest of nations is valued above and beyond all other values. People can talk about how they value peace, but it’s clear they value their own nation’s best interest more.