The Daily Grasshopper

What is the role of the United Nations in today's world? According to our president, George W. Bush, the UN is in danger of abandoning its mission if it fails to produce a second resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Bush was quoted on the front page of the Boston Sunday Globe, in a story entitled "US says Iraq missile cuts will not suffice," as saying the United Nations has to "show its relevance" by approving the joint U.S./U.K. resolution, which will be presented early this week. Left unasked, and therefore unresolved, is the question "What would suffice?" but the rest of the day's news leaves little doubt as to what the answer would be: nothing. Bush wants war. That snapping and grinding noise you were hearing all weekend was the sound of the arms of individual Security Council members being twisted by the U.S. and U.K. - our venerated diplomacy at work.

Nevertheless, I see a couple of inconsistencies with this position regarding the U.N. First of all, as I (and many others) have been saying for a while now, Iraq is far from alone in the "defying the UN Security Council" department - thus challenging its "relevance," according to Bush's formulation. There's a really important story on page A24 of the Sunday Globe about the destruction of missiles in Iraq. You can read it here:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/054/nation/Factory_head_tries_to_save_missiles+.shtml

Here's the critical part:

"The United States and Britain accuse Iraq of developing weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, despite UN bans on both; Iraq denies holding such weapons and says its enemies have their eyes on Iraq's oil and on world domination."

Well, just to be clear, the UN has tried to outlaw nuclear weapons in the region, "banning" them from the entire Middle East, not just Iraq - the "weapons of mass destruction" alluded to in the Globe story. And yet Israel, the all-time leading recipient of U.S. foreign and military aid and our ally in the region (as well as all-time leading violator of U.N. Security Council resolutions), has been flouting this resolution with impunity for more than 20 years. For example, Resolution 487, passed by the Security Council in 1981, urges Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the International Atomic Energy Agency (the same group conducting inspections right now in Iraq). Israel hasn't. It has also refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, despite numerous calls to do so from the international community.

The Security Council has also gone on record on several occasions calling for an international settlement to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Note that the U.N. has done little to enforce these resolutions, and hasn't suffered much of a crisis of "relevance" as a result. That's because when U.N. inaction suits the U.S. position on an issue, it's perfectly fine for international opinion to be disregarded, and "irrelevance" to rule the day. Documentation of the U.N. Security Council resolutions currently being violated can be found here:

http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0210unres.pdf.

It's pretty interesting stuff, to say the least.

Then there's the matter of Iraqi self-defense, or, more accurately, self-defense in general. According to international law (the U.N. Charter), "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered; and, All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner consistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The only time unilateral military action can be sanctioned is when it's for self-defense: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

So that's the framework of international law, roughly speaking. The Sunday Globe reports that there are "about 200,000 US and British troops in the Gulf region poised to strike," and that "US officials are focusing on what character the military action will take - not whether it will happen." The same article quotes former Clinton National Security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger as saying "a war is virtually inevitable." Former CIA director James Woolsey said simply removing Hussein will not be enough - "Saddam alone is not the problem," thereby closing the door on any initiative to avoid war by sending Hussein into exile. And, naturally, the ever-ready anonymous UN diplomat: "It seems the United States is determined to go to war."

Assuming the Iraqis read the papers, too, then it's reasonable to assume that they are rightfully concerned about their safety in the face of this buildup - and their ability to pursue their "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence." And yet what is happening inside Iraq? The U.N. weapons inspectors are tagging missiles for destruction. So "self-defense," as provided for in international law, becomes "irrelevant" when we are the ones on the attack. To grasp the full irony of this, recall that we are invading Iraq to "defend the security of our country" (President Bush, in Georgia last week: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?category=&storyID=107789&BCCode=&newsdate=2/21/2003).

Here's the part of the article you should read:

"Splitting into three groups, the men entered "workshops, assembly areas, and all departments. They tagged some of the missiles that were being assembled," according to Owayed Ahmed Ali, director of the factory.

Ali said he pleaded with them not to force Iraq to destroy the missiles, as chief UN inspector Hans Blix ordered it to do Friday. Blix said UN-supervised destruction of all Al Samoud 2 missiles, warheads, fuel, engines, and other components must begin by March 1.

"I asked [the inspectors], 'You would destroy a defensive weapon now that we are threatened by the Americans, who might strike at any moment?"' he said.

"Some said, 'You are right, but we have orders,' while others said, 'You have other means to defend yourself,"' he recounted.

Ali said threats of war by the United States and Britain, who have assembled some 200,000 troops around Iraq for a possible invasion, make it difficult for Iraq to give up the weapons it needs to defend itself.

"They want to destroy them at a time when we are threatened daily - every minute and every second," he said.

The U.S. can adopt this position of belligerence because we have, far and away, the most advanced military in the world. But we should not exult in this dominance, because it's going to have very profound consequences if we continue exerting it the way we have been. A couple of other stories in the Sunday Globe allude to this.

One is a story about the town of Maan, Jordan. The title of the article is "City seen as civic bellwether for political unrest." It tells the story of popular opposition to the U.S. influence in the region. Jordan is a country of 5.2 million, 1.5 million of whom are of Palestinian descent. Last October, Lawrence Foley, an official with the US Agency for International Development, was assassinated in Amman, the country's capital.

The whole story is here:
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/054/nation/City_seen_as_civic_bellwether_for_political_unrest+.shtml

Here's the part that is worrisome:

"But people here predict more bloodshed if the United States wages war in Iraq. They believe they are on opposite sides of the conflict from their government, which has quietly allowed stationing of US antimissile systems near the border to defend against any possible Iraqi missile attack on Israel.