By H. K. Billy Burke, ContributorThe French, German, Russian stance at the U.N. in the recent Security Council debate was completely justified and in keeping with the purpose of the
organisation which is peace-keeping. Progress was being made in
disarming Iraq.
MOST OF the commentators I have heard speak on the effects of the recent Iraqi debate on the United Nations Security Council would agree with President George W Bush that the Council has lost its relevance. I for one disagree entirely.
If we are to examine the matter we should perhaps begin with Bush's bellicose statements about "an axis of evil", "who is not with us is against us" and disarming Iraq with or without the backing of the U.N. In my view, when the leader of a powerful nation starts to talk like this it should be a wake-up call to the U.N. The Secretary-General or a spokesman for the organisation should immediately take up the challenge and rebuke the demagogue publicly. In this instance I know of no reaction from the U.N. until September l2, 2002 when Bush addressed the United Nations and challenged them to enforce their resolutions pertaining to Iraq, or the United States would do so. Bush was gently reminded, before he spoke, that only the U.N. had this authority. This was too little too late. An earlier reprimand might have been effective in mobilising public opinion and instigating second thoughts by the U.S. administration on taking unilateral action.
It should not have been necessary for Prime Minister Tony Blair and Secretary of State Colin Powell to persuade the U.S. to work through the U.N. and not to act unilaterally. The U.S. is a member of the U.N. and knows its obligations under the U.N. Charter. If it walks away from them it becomes a rogue state and must be regarded as such. When the U.N. was set up it was not anticipated that powerful nations would continue to act in this irresponsible manner and the Security Council was instituted to settle disputes between states in an amicable manner which would avoid wars and keep the peace. It was never designed to put the stamp of approval on contemplated aggression by member states and pre-emptive strikes as in this instance. It is a peace-keeping organisation and not a war-making one. If this is the way in which countries of the calibre of the U.S.A. and United Kingdom are now behaving it seems time to re-examine the structure and terms of the Security Council and U.N .Charter to determine what changes are necessary, if any.
The three items which need urgent debate are [l] the maintenance or abolition of the veto power of permanent members [2] the concept of pre-emptive strikes proclaimed in U.S. foreign policy and [3] the need for the U.N. to have military as well as moral power as the latter alone does not work.
Had the U.N. been able to wield or call upon military power it might have been able to enforce its many flouted resolutions. The U.S. knows very well that as matters stand, it would have been the military power to do the enforcing, if that decision had been taken. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs to be continued if the U.S. administration is becoming so aggressive, going in turn for Afghanistan and now Iraq. Who will be next?
The French, German, Russian stance at the U.N. in the recent Security Council debate was completely justified and in keeping with the purpose of the organisation which is peace-keeping. Progress was being made in disarming Iraq. It is true that this would not have come about without the threat of military action and the presence of forces on its borders but it was highly improper for the U.S. to be pressuring the U.N. to pass resolutions it was very reluctant to pass and to bring matters to a head while progress was still being made with disarmament. Council votes are carried by majority not unanimity and are not a failure if they are split, not unanimous. Like any other member the U.S. has one vote only but also the veto power like France and the other permanent members. The U.S. bullied the U.N. but thankfully France and most of the other members of the Security Council had the fortitude to withstand the pressure to the end. To my way of thinking it was the U.S. not the U.N. that lost credibility.
The U.N. now has the opportunity to become more relevant and not less so in the future. They may have lost the battle to stop the war but they have won the moral victory while the U.S. has lost most of its friends, mobilised world public opinion against itself and might yet suffer more damage than it has avoided.
It is heartening that the smaller temporary nations on the Council were brave and honest enough to withstand any threats or enticements the U.S. might have used to try and get a favourable vote out of them. Turkey has also withstood the enticement of billions of dollars it might sorely have needed by not submitting to the presence of U.S. forces on its soil.
France, above all, whatever its other interests may be [and I have heard of many thrown at them] appears fully awake to the dangers presented by the increasing mono-polarity of the world and the menace of U.S. imperialism.
At its peril France took the stand that needs to be taken to bring the U.S. back into line with the world's desire for peace and order. This, I am sorry to say, is as I see it, going to be the main occupation of the Security Council unless and until there is a change in U.S. foreign policy when there is a regime change in that country. This will make the U.N. Security Council more relevant than it has ever been.
