The United States and Great Britain have spent much time attempting to gain the approval of the United Nations Security Council for the use of force in Iraq. But do we really want the support of an organization like the United Nations?
During the Cold War, the U.N. Security Council was paralyzed by the use of vetoes from the Western and Soviet bloc. The Soviet Union used its veto power more than 75 times by 1955. Not surprisingly, the U.N. was not heard from during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
The end of the Cold War brought about hope for a “New World Order” in which international consensus would be based on universal norms and be directed through the U.N. The Gulf War in 1991 made many believe this truly was occurring.
But all along the U.N. was failing to produce real results. According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.N. has included terrorism as agenda item for each session of the General Assembly since the 27th session in 1972. Between 1963 and 1999, the General Assembly adopted 13 resolutions and one decision addressing international terrorism, created the Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism and helped form 12 international treaties.
Unfortunately, terrorist attacks have increased steadily throughout the years as the U.N. Has implemented new anti-terrorism treaties. These treaties even were signed by each of the seven state sponsors of terrorism as identified by the U.S. Department of State. The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 and the Sept. 11 attacks are glaring examples of the ineffectiveness of the U.N.’s approach to tackling terrorism.
Following the Sept. 11 attacks, the General Assembly held a five day discussion on “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism.” Just blocks away from the World Trade Center wreckage, the General Assembly President ended the meeting by recommending member states become parties to international conventions relating to terrorism, conclude General Assembly negotiations on pending international terrorism conventions, expedite a report on terrorism from the sixth committee of the General Assembly and launch a “dialogue among civilizations” on the fight against terrorism.
Even after seeing the chilling effects of terrorism, the U.N. could do no better than recommend more committees, paperwork and talk. It cited the need for a “clearer definition of terrorism” as a chief obstacle facing the U.N. How difficult can it be to define terrorism?
Even the current problem in Iraq could be traced back to the Security Council’s approach to the Gulf War. The U.S. Led coalition acted under the authority provided by U.N. Resolution 678. It limited the use of force to expelling Iraq from Kuwait. So former President George H. W. Bush legalistically followed the resolution and prematurely terminated the war after only 100 hours, leaving Saddam in power.
Despite the fact the United States foots the bill for 25 percent of the U.N. general budget and 31.7 percent of the peacekeeping forces, the U.S. is treated as the U.N.’s red-headed step child.
America was voted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the International Narcotics Control Board in 2001. The U.S. recently returned to the Human Rights Commission, but as America was allowed back on, the commission elected Libya to chair the commission.
Libya is the same country linked to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, other terrorist acts and human rights abuses of its citizens.
“Libya’s election poses a real test for the commission,” said Human Rights Watch U.N. Representative Joanna Weschler. “Repressive governments must not be allowed to hijack the U.N. human rights system.”
The 53-member commission includes four of the nine countries cited by Freedom House as the countries with the worst records of human rights abuses: Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria along with infamous human rights abusers China and Zimbabwe.
The U.N. disarmament conference uses a system based solely on an alphabetical rotation to decide who will head the conference. The ultimate demonstration of the U.N.’s absurdity will occur in May as Iraq will chair the U.N. disarmament conference along with it’s co-chair and enemy Iran.
The security council also uses a rotating system to decide who will assume the temporary presidency. Last summer, Syria assumed the position 20 years after it massacred 20,000 people during an uprise in the Syrian city of Hama. Now the security council is being lead by Guinea, a country that only provides its citizens with electricity a few hours a week. Should a country that is not capable of providing its citizens with electricity oversee the Security Council in such an important time?
The U.N. has proven itself to be little more than a relief organization. Time after time, it has failed to lead and with countries such as Iraq and Libya in leadership positions, there is certainly a vacuum of moral leadership.