Volume CXXXII, Number 4 October 4, 2002 f

We are still a sovereign nation
PAT ROCKEFELLER
COLUMNIST

In the debate over whether the U.S. should invade Iraq, the question of U.N. approval is perhaps the least important. Well, it's probably more important than Barbara Streisand's opinion, but not much.
First and foremost, the United States is a sovereign nation, and as such, it has every right to act alone in the manner it deems fit to serve its national interest.

The decision to attack should not be made lightly. We should consider factors such as casualties, post-Hussein politics, financial cost to the U.S., Hussein's access to weapons of mass destruction, and dozens of other issues. Whether or not attacking will damage relations with our "allies" is a consideration and should be part of the equation, but only in how it relates to our national interest, not theirs.

The most important argument to make against the need for U.N. approval is that the U.N. is not a selfless organization where wholesome leaders of all the world's countries put aside petty differences in order to commit themselves to the goodness of the people of the world.

All sorts of odious characters are represented in the U.N. In fact, they are over-represented. The U.S. was kicked off the U.N. Human Rights Council two years ago in favor of Sudan, a country that still has slavery. The most vicious and immoral dictators, dressed up as Heads of State, love the U.N. because it gives them an international forum in which to be heard, despite the fact that any decent person knows the world would be a better place if these thugs were shot on sight.

With no real standards for membership, and such a wide display of crapweasel representatives, The U.N. cannot be the Alpha and Omega of international relations.

Sure, the U.N. does some good things (feeding the poor, increasing literacy, etc.) but in terms of approving military action, who cares?

Allowing Saddam Hussein to blackmail the world with mushroom clouds because the U.N. would not approve an attack would be a disaster. Just because the U.N. does some good things doesn't mean all their actions are right or proper. Hamas funds Palestinian Hospitals (a good thing), just as they bomb Jewish children in pizza parlors (a bad thing). Do their better actions give them legitimacy?

That approval or disapproval of various U.N. members will be based on the same sense of selfishness that characterizes all actions of all nations. Why is it considered more moral to request U.N. approval for action when approval will still be based on self interest, only of different countries, most of whom will not be involved in the fighting?

Why would France's approval make an attack more moral? France's self interest is against an attack because they have billions of Euros tied up in oil contracts with Saddam's Government.

Why would Russia's approval make an attack more moral? Russia's self interest is in securing the $8 billion in debt that Iraq owes.

Why would China's approval make an attack more moral? China's self interest is in maintaining a strangle hold over its population, shutting down free press, forcing abortions on women with more than one child and imprisoning dissenters.

So, hypothetically, what would be the benefit of U.N. approval? Photo-ops of all the countries flags flying together? Praise from the New York Times, Guardian and Mirror for having gone through with the U.N.? Doubtful.

Military help from most other countries would be more trouble than it's worth, and the only countries that could make a difference (Britain and Israel) have already said they would support us anyway. Saudi Arabia said that they'd let us use our air base stationed there if the U.N. gave its approval, but the U.S. is already setting up shop in Qatar instead.

The composition of the U.N. Security Council, that conglomeration of permanent countries that have veto power over any U.N. action, is anachronistic. Britain and France were only included because of their pre-WWII empires, and Russia only because of its post-WWII power.
Were the U.N. formed today, it would look quite different. France's big contribution to the world today is fine wine, and Russia has the economic might of the Netherlands. The United States, China and possibly Britain are the only Security Council countries that could make a strong claim to continued membership.

The need to get approval from other countries has to be balanced with the need for America to act in its own interest and with an eye to the fact that the vast majority of the members of the U.N. are not countries that we should ever give consideration to in terms of shaping our policy.
If Kofi Annan, Gerhard Schroder, or Jacques Chirac wants to be the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century, proclaiming war unnecessary, and "peace for our time" under the flag of the U.N., fine. But just as the world should have done in 1938, the U.S. should ignore them and do as Winston Churchill said, and fight "to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone."