The U.N. Is Irrelevant
by Charley Reese
March 17, 2003
It's typical of the Bush team's polemical tactics to try to dismiss
the United Nations as irrelevant if it doesn't buckle to President
Bush's demands for an instant war against Iraq. It's also nonsense.
As for the hoopla about vetoes, the United States is second only to
the Soviet Union in exercising the U.N. veto. The score card,
compiled by the BBC News, is: the Soviet Union/Russia, 120 vetoes
(only two of those since the Soviet Union collapsed); the United
States, 76 vetoes — 35 used to block criticism of Israel (that old
double standard has the United States in its grip); the United
Kingdom, 32 vetoes, of which 23 were votes cast with the United
States; France, 18 vetoes, 13 of which were in support of the United
States' position; and China, 5 vetoes.
You should know that the United Nations, established at the end of
World War II, was designed to allow the victorious Allies to rule the
world. In the U.N. charter, the only power lies in the Security
Council. Only it can levy sanctions and wage war. The General
Assembly has no means of enforcing any resolutions it might pass.
So the builders of the United Nations, which were the five World War
II Allies, reserved all the power for the Security Council and
awarded themselves five permanent seats and the veto. A "no" vote by
any of the five permanent members is a veto. As that old saying about
plans, mice and men goes, the five Allies soon had a falling out
before they could run the world to suit themselves.
The Soviet Union and the United States started the Cold War and used
their vetoes often to frustrate each other. France and the United
Kingdom, originally considered among the great powers, were so
weakened by the war and the loss of their respective empires that
they had to more or less take a back seat, though it was still a
permanent seat with a veto. Originally, the Nationalists held the
China seat, but after they were driven off the mainland, communist
China eventually evicted them from the United Nations and took their
place.
So that's the background. The pseudo-outrage over a French or Russian
veto is just that — phony outrage. The United States has always
adopted a cynical attitude toward the United Nations. When it suited
the United States' purposes, it used the United Nations as political
cover; when it didn't, the United States ignored the United Nations
and has often prevented the organization from acting (the 35 vetoes
of resolutions critical of Israel are an example). In fact, the
United States has kept the United Nations from playing any role at
all in trying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that,
ironically, was created by the United Kingdom, the United States and
the Soviet Union, using the United Nations as a mechanism.
Don't worry that the United Nations will become irrelevant. Since it
lacks any power except that granted by the five permanent members, it
has always been irrelevant. It cannot prevent any of the five major
powers from doing anything it chooses to do, nor can it coerce any of
them. It is not, as some imagine, a world government. In that sense,
the United Nations is a fraud, and at best, assuming the five members
could agree, it would be just a dictatorial oligarchy.
What is afoot today has nothing to do with Iraq. It has to do with
whether the world will be run by the United States or by a consensus
of nations. The collapse of the Soviet Union created a power
imbalance. No nation is so powerful, militarily or economically, as
the United States. The United States has the power and, since the
election of George Bush, the intention of running the world to suit
itself. The United Kingdom has decided to tag along, but this has
brought China, Russia, France, Germany and other countries together
in an effort to find a way to thwart U.S. hegemony.
Unless we wish to follow the foolish path, we will remember that our
power is relative and therefore temporary. We can tell the rest of
the world to go to hell today, but if we do, one day we will find
ourselves overpowered by a coalition of enemies we will have created.
That will not be pleasant.
by Charley Reese
March 17, 2003
It's typical of the Bush team's polemical tactics to try to dismiss
the United Nations as irrelevant if it doesn't buckle to President
Bush's demands for an instant war against Iraq. It's also nonsense.
As for the hoopla about vetoes, the United States is second only to
the Soviet Union in exercising the U.N. veto. The score card,
compiled by the BBC News, is: the Soviet Union/Russia, 120 vetoes
(only two of those since the Soviet Union collapsed); the United
States, 76 vetoes — 35 used to block criticism of Israel (that old
double standard has the United States in its grip); the United
Kingdom, 32 vetoes, of which 23 were votes cast with the United
States; France, 18 vetoes, 13 of which were in support of the United
States' position; and China, 5 vetoes.
You should know that the United Nations, established at the end of
World War II, was designed to allow the victorious Allies to rule the
world. In the U.N. charter, the only power lies in the Security
Council. Only it can levy sanctions and wage war. The General
Assembly has no means of enforcing any resolutions it might pass.
So the builders of the United Nations, which were the five World War
II Allies, reserved all the power for the Security Council and
awarded themselves five permanent seats and the veto. A "no" vote by
any of the five permanent members is a veto. As that old saying about
plans, mice and men goes, the five Allies soon had a falling out
before they could run the world to suit themselves.
The Soviet Union and the United States started the Cold War and used
their vetoes often to frustrate each other. France and the United
Kingdom, originally considered among the great powers, were so
weakened by the war and the loss of their respective empires that
they had to more or less take a back seat, though it was still a
permanent seat with a veto. Originally, the Nationalists held the
China seat, but after they were driven off the mainland, communist
China eventually evicted them from the United Nations and took their
place.
So that's the background. The pseudo-outrage over a French or Russian
veto is just that — phony outrage. The United States has always
adopted a cynical attitude toward the United Nations. When it suited
the United States' purposes, it used the United Nations as political
cover; when it didn't, the United States ignored the United Nations
and has often prevented the organization from acting (the 35 vetoes
of resolutions critical of Israel are an example). In fact, the
United States has kept the United Nations from playing any role at
all in trying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that,
ironically, was created by the United Kingdom, the United States and
the Soviet Union, using the United Nations as a mechanism.
Don't worry that the United Nations will become irrelevant. Since it
lacks any power except that granted by the five permanent members, it
has always been irrelevant. It cannot prevent any of the five major
powers from doing anything it chooses to do, nor can it coerce any of
them. It is not, as some imagine, a world government. In that sense,
the United Nations is a fraud, and at best, assuming the five members
could agree, it would be just a dictatorial oligarchy.
What is afoot today has nothing to do with Iraq. It has to do with
whether the world will be run by the United States or by a consensus
of nations. The collapse of the Soviet Union created a power
imbalance. No nation is so powerful, militarily or economically, as
the United States. The United States has the power and, since the
election of George Bush, the intention of running the world to suit
itself. The United Kingdom has decided to tag along, but this has
brought China, Russia, France, Germany and other countries together
in an effort to find a way to thwart U.S. hegemony.
Unless we wish to follow the foolish path, we will remember that our
power is relative and therefore temporary. We can tell the rest of
the world to go to hell today, but if we do, one day we will find
ourselves overpowered by a coalition of enemies we will have created.
That will not be pleasant.