U.N.-productive?

In the days and weeks prior to the current conflict with Iraq, we heard two main ideas coming out of the United Nations: one being that the weapons inspectors needed more time to do their jobs; and the other being France’s decrying American “unilateralism” while at the same time vowing, unilaterally it would seem, to block any security council resolution that would authorize the use of force to disarm Iraq.

Granted, there were other nations, such as Germany and Russia, who also have veto power in the security council that would have preferred to give the inspectors more time to work. However, France was the most openly hostile and intractable in its stance that no matter what the United States produced as evidence of a need for force, it would not vote for such a resolution.

Despite the fact that for the past 12 years Iraq has lied about its weapons programs and hindered the weapons inspection teams, or blatantly kicked them out, when it comes to the idea that Saddam Hussein cannot be dealt with by diplomacy, France is effectively covering its ears and saying “I can’t hear you.”

Now that the conflict with Iraq is underway, without U.N. approval, France is saying that the U.N. should have a central role in the reconstruction of post-war Iraq. Given the open dissention even among longtime allies in the U.N., I have to wonder if this is the best idea, and indeed if the U.N. has outlived its usefulness.

The central goal of the U.N. is to serve as a body for international law, or as close to international law as can be established. It is theoretically a place where member nations can turn for aid in settling disputes peacefully, an organization that works for the good of all. I’d like to say that I’m not totally against the U.N. I do believe that it provides useful services such as aid and relief to refugees from war-torn countries and conducting forums to discuss and act on human-rights abuses.

Now, I’m not an international relations major, nor am I any sort of political analyst, however, it seems to me that this current very visible dissention within the ranks highlights the end, not the beginning of the end, of the golden age of the U.N. as a body for international law. Particularly with regard to Iraq, the power of the U.N. has proven largely ineffective.

Twelve years of resolutions and sanctions have served but as a slap on the wrist to Hussein’s regime, and innocent civilians in Iraq have suffered for the U.N.’s lack of ability to force compliance.

Yet now that the United States and Great Britain have taken the initiative to go to war to disarm Iraq and remove Hussein and his regime from power, we hear an outcry of how this is a violation of international law. At home and abroad, sanctions against Iraq are blamed for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Yet such sanctions would not have been necessary had Hussein’s regime complied with the resolution to disarm following the first Gulf War.

For 12 years, international law was violated without an equal outcry, so why now? Especially when we hear news reports of Iraqi “irregulars” using human shields, flying white flags of surrender only to kill coalition forces or dressing as civilians and attacking…all of which are condemned as practices that should not be used in war.

Why has the U.N. said nothing of this? I think it reflects the increasing nationalistic natures found within members of the organization. Those who didn’t see Iraq as a threat, immediate or otherwise, oppose the use of force to make sure resolutions are followed are now concerned with the violation of international law on the part of those nations who perceived Iraq and Hussein’s regime or weapons as a threat.

When the U.N. is unwilling to back up its own resolutions, particularly when dealing with a dictator who has weapons of mass destruction and has used them on his own people, the power of international law, and thusly the U.N. itself, disappears.

Perhaps the U.N. will have some role to play in post-war Iraq, but until it is able to rebuild itself into a functioning organization that is unafraid to back up its principles, the role the U.N. plays should not be an extensive one.