|
Time's Up for the UN
Time's Up
The U.N. is already morally irrelevant. By Max Abrahms March 7, 2003 The Bush administration has billed what would be the 18th Security Council resolution vote against Saddam Hussein as the "final opportunity" for both Iraqi compliance and the U.N.'s "moral relevance." This challenge to the U.N. may ring familiar. Last fall, President Bush dared the General Assembly to ignore 12 years of Iraqi weapons violations, "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" And in the early 1950s the Truman administration similarly goaded the U.N. into action by dubbing North Korean aggression as "an attack on the United Nations itself." As a public-relations strategy, confronting the U.N. with its own putative moral obligations makes perfect sense. But one thing is clear =97 even if coalition forces end up fighting alongside a few blue helmets, the U.N.'s decision will not carry any moral weight. During the Cold War, this fact went uncontested. The bipolar world paralyzed the Security Council as vetoes from either the Western or Soviet bloc came to be the norm. By 1955, the Soviet Union had thwarted the Council no fewer than 75 times. The U.N. was silent during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but these events were seen for what they were =97 not morally ambiguous developments, but the reality of Cold War jockeying. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, all of this was supposed to change. President George H. W. Bush spoke of a "New World Order," which would be dictated by international consensus based on universal norms. On the surface, the 1991 Gulf War upheld this optimism. The so-called international community roundly condemned Iraq's unwarranted invasion of a sovereign country, and the ensuing war took place under the U.N. banner. Within a week, the pariah state had been brought to its knees. This was collective security at work. Or was it? In retrospect, the real amazement is not that the world had changed, but that a transgression could ever enliven and rally such a disparate coalition of states. The 1990s fed the illusion of a moral United Nations, but only if measured in terms the founders had never envisaged, such as in peacekeeping and nation-building exercises. On hard security questions, the U.N. remained =97 at best =97 a sideshow. It deferred to the world's superpower, dragged its feet until disaster had already struck, or did nothing at all. This was the story of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda. Polling data consistently show popular support =97 at home and abroad =97 for a U.N. solution to the Iraqi problem. But if the Bush administration gives the Security Council one last chance for "moral relevance," member-states' perceived national interests will as always determine their vote. Specifically, France's all-important vote would come down to its view of whether a "non" at the Security Council is the best way to restrain the "hyper-power" United States. On the one hand, France hopes vetoing a U.N.-sponsored war could prove its place on the Permanent Five as a counterbalance to American hegemony. On the other, France recognizes this plan could backfire =97 if states subsequently write off the U.N. as a forum for conflict resolution. In light of the current wrangling within the Security Council, this is a distinct possibility. The other key state is Russia, whose ambivalence has less to do with the moral basis of Iraqi regime change than the amount of cash a postwar Iraq would put in its pocket. As the chairman of the Russian foreign affairs committee recently put it: "There is an $8 billion state debt owed by Iraq to Russia, we have serious oil interests, and the Iraqi market is a major buyer of Russian goods. We need to hear a strong message from Washington that they understand our concerns in this area." From Mexico to Cameroon, the same cost-benefit strategic analysis will determine the votes of the ten rotating Security Council members =97 not eleventh-hour moral revelations, as U.N. enthusiasts seem to think. "The United Nations is today an instrument through which its members try to protect and promote their respective national interests," the political scientist Hans Morgenthau pointed out almost 50 years ago. The U.N.'s position on the war will not make the war or the U.N. itself any more or less morally relevant. Yet if the U.N.'s decision contributes to keeping Saddam in power, it could well make the world more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The final opportunity for moral relevance has long passed, but the U.N. may still be able to promote international peace and stability, starting in the Persian Gulf. =97 Max Abrahms is a Soref Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. =A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ahms030703.asp =A0=A0=A0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D At the SF "Saddamites on Parade" Appeasement March: Credit and Thanks to http://www.ProtestWarrior.com "Protect Islamic Property Rights Against Western Imperialism! Say No to War!" [with picture of a burqa-wearing woman on a leash tied to a post] "Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything," "Saddam Only Kills His Own People. It's None of Our Business" "Communism has Only Killed 100 Million People. Let's Give it Another Chance." ,,,,,,,,,, =3DThey accepted dishonour to have peace. =3DThey will have their dishonour, and war. -- Winston Churchill - 1938 -upon the return from Munich of British PM Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Edouard Daladier having 'appeased' Hitler with the Sudetenland. What would Sir Winston say now concerning the vile and cowardly appeasement policies of Chirac, deVillepin and Schroeder regarding today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein? Especially concerning the same hideous applause given to deVillepin at the UN Security Council that Chamberlain got when he waved that useless piece of paper in the air.... |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>Time's Up >The U.N. is already morally irrelevant. >By Max Abrahms >March 7, 2003 What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe? Why is it that webtv posters seem to be particularly clueless? PB |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote: >>Time's Up >>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant. >>By Max Abrahms >>March 7, 2003 >What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe? Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location? Vichy? ================================================== ============ "Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction." - Ann Coulter 9/26/2002 |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
le Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:44:55 GMT, dans l'article , ArKLyte a dit ...
>>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe? > Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location? > > Vichy? Nah ... move it to Saigon. At least we know the United States won't attack there. *snigger* -- Desmond Coughlan desmond @ zeouane.org http: // www . zeouane . org |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
ArKLyte wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote: >>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote: >>>Time's Up >>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant. >>>By Max Abrahms >>>March 7, 2003 >>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe? >Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location? >Vichy? Good idea. The US might then get the idea that it does not own the UN. Why are you not posting from webtv? PB |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:55:09 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>ArKLyte wrote: >>On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote: >>>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote: >>>>Time's Up >>>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant. >>>>By Max Abrahms >>>>March 7, 2003 >>>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe? >>Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location? >>Vichy? >Good idea. The US might then get the idea that it does not own the UN. It should be apparent from anyone paying attention that we don't 'own the U.N.' >Why are you not posting from webtv? >PB I don't. Ask your Irish Mommy to help you read the newsgroup properly. ================================================== ============ "Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction." - Ann Coulter 9/26/2002 |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"ArKLyte" wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:55:09 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote: > >ArKLyte wrote: > > > >>On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote: > >> > >>>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote: > >>> > >>>>Time's Up > >>>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant. > >>>> > >>>>By Max Abrahms > >>>>March 7, 2003 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe? > >> > >>Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location? > >> > >>Vichy? > >> > >Good idea. The US might then get the idea that it does not own the UN. > > > It should be apparent from anyone paying attention that we don't > 'own the U.N.' > >Why are you not posting from webtv? > > > >PB > I don't. > Ask your Irish Mommy to help you read the newsgroup properly. > So cretin, you have moved here to escape me. As I have told you before, get your little rocks off in your SUV while you are driving off that cliff. You are so ridiculous you even embarress the rest of your conservative cronies. Now please, let the nurse take you back to bed and give you that highly needed colonic irrigation. Your pal; momma's boy |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > ArKLyte wrote: > >On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote: > > > >>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote: > >> > >>>Time's Up > >>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant. > >>> > >>>By Max Abrahms > >>>March 7, 2003 > >>> > >> > >> > >>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe? > > > >Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location? > > > >Vichy? > > > Good idea. The US might then get the idea that it does not own the UN. Then MOVE it off our soil. PLEASE! With YOUR money please. |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:19:19 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb"
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this : ... ... Then MOVE it off our soil. PLEASE! With YOUR money please. Why did you WANT to have it, in the first place ? Did you think that it would be easier to control the UN, it being there ? LOL ====== Where are we going to and why are we in a handbasket ? |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"Magda" wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:19:19 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb" > arranged some electrons, so they looked like this : > ... > ... Then MOVE it off our soil. PLEASE! With YOUR money please. > Why did you WANT to have it, in the first place ? Did you think that it would be easier to > control the UN, it being there ? LOL WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there before WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please get that trash off our land. > ====== > Where are we going to and why are we in a handbasket ? |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:03:11 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb"
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this : ... ... WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there before ... WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please get ... that trash off our land. You didn't mind it while it served your purposes... Now that the wind turned it's "trash"... LOL ====== Where are we going to and why are we in a handbasket ? |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"Magda" wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:03:11 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb" > arranged some electrons, so they looked like this : > ... > ... WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there before > ... WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please get > ... that trash off our land. > You didn't mind it while it served your purposes... Now that the wind turned it's > "trash"... LOL For as long as I've been alive it's just been using up my resources and my money. Please get this trash off of US soil. I don't give a shit who or what it served before, it's a blight, an expensive blight. It never served MY purposes. As long as I've been aware of it I minded it a LOT. Stupid french monkey, take it. > ====== > Where are we going to and why are we in a handbasket ? |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"jeb" wrote:
>"Magda" wrote in message >news:[email protected]... >> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:03:11 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb" >> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this : >> ... >> ... WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there >before >> ... WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please >get >> ... that trash off our land. >> You didn't mind it while it served your purposes... Now that the wind >turned it's >> "trash"... LOL >For as long as I've been alive it's just been using up my resources and my >money. Please get this trash off of US soil. I don't give a shit who or what >it served before, it's a blight, an expensive blight. It never served MY >purposes. As long as I've been aware of it I minded it a LOT. Stupid french >monkey, take it. On further reflection, I propose that we leave it in NYC. It will assist in the great plan to have the world take over the US. PB |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > "jeb" wrote: > >"Magda" wrote in message > >news:[email protected]... > >> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:03:11 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb" > > > >> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this : > >> > >> ... > >> ... WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there > >before > >> ... WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please > >get > >> ... that trash off our land. > >> > >> You didn't mind it while it served your purposes... Now that the wind > >turned it's > >> "trash"... LOL > > > >For as long as I've been alive it's just been using up my resources and my > >money. Please get this trash off of US soil. I don't give a shit who or what > >it served before, it's a blight, an expensive blight. It never served MY > >purposes. As long as I've been aware of it I minded it a LOT. Stupid french > >monkey, take it. > > > On further reflection, I propose that we leave it in NYC. It will > assist in the great plan to have the world take over the US. > PB heh, that's pretty funny, Ireland the great aggressor! |
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"jeb" wrote:
>"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message >news:[email protected]... >> On further reflection, I propose that we leave it in NYC. It will >> assist in the great plan to have the world take over the US. >heh, that's pretty funny, Ireland the great aggressor! Do you know what irony is? No, I thought not. PB |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 10:21 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.