0“[T}he United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill ...



The Role of the United States and the United Nations

By Gerrald Commissiong

0“[T}he United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to "make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force”.

Another resolution is now before the Security Council. If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the Council will fulfill its founding purpose.

I've listened carefully, as people and leaders around the world have made known their desire for peace. All of us want peace. The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the civilized world; the threat to peace comes from those who flout those demands. If we have to act, we will act to restrain the violent, and defend the cause of peace. And by acting, we will signal to outlaw regimes that in this new century, the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected.”[1]

President George W. Bush addressing the American Enterprise Institute on an imminent war with Iraq on 02/26/02

Wars have dominated mankind’s history to the point where history is most often recounted as a string of wars transpiring one after the next. As man’s thinking evolved throughout the second millennium, especially during the twentieth century, it became evident that our technological advancement was coming to the frightening point where entire populations could be wiped out with the single push of a button; as happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This gruesome reality, tragically realized during the First and Second World Wars, led to the foundation of the United Nations, a union of nations from around the globe whose main purposes are to prevent such wars and uphold human rights through diplomacy and strategic military action.

To maintain international peace and security; and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

-United Nations Security Council Charter Article 1[2]

This extremely lofty mandate of world peace and security which has been set for the United Nations will most likely never be realized. Despite the imminent impossibility of its mandate, its directive has proven effective in preventing grand scale wars and in seeking to better the living conditions of humans around the globe in the past half-century. Furthermore, the United Nations has had a significant impact on diplomatic relations between countries and has sought to exert its influence to promote its mandate, above quoted. Historically, the United States has spearheaded United Nations policy as one of its founding countries, as a permanent member of the Security Council and as one of the world’s lone superpowers. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has emerged as the world’s lone superpower, as a bastion of democracy and it has advocated the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the world; all consistent with popular world opinion. Towards the beginning of 2002, only months after America suffered its worst terrorist attack in history, the president of the United States, George Bush, made clear his intentions to invade Iraq in order to disarm this country which Bush considers “armed and dangerous”. This led to debate around the globe as to the validity of such an invasion. Iraq has been described by many American government officials as a part of the “Axis of Evil” because they suspect that Iraq supports terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and that Iraq had produced military arms which extended far beyond the limits allowed by United Nations resolutions passed after the Gulf War. However, many other countries, such as France, Germany and Russia, disagreed with these American views and expressed this within the forum of the United Nations. Furthermore, the United States has been seen increasingly in opposition with the United Nations and the larger international community on such critical matters as the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol. These American inconsistencies with United Nations policy have led many to question the new role of the United States within the United Nations as the world’s lone superpower in this new millennium. The reality is that by diplomatically isolating itself from the rest of the world, America is repeating the errors of previous world empires and this isolation will ultimately lead to its demise.

THE UNITED NATIONS

The United Nations was founded upon the democratic principles of countries voting for laws, resolutions and military actions to be enforced equally throughout the world. The objective of the United Nations has always been to provide a forum where countries are able to discuss possibilities and move to action based on world consensus and the international community’s backing. The criteria defining world consensus is clearly stated within the United Nations charter. These principles are very similar to the American principles of States Rights and Representation within the Union. As such, the United States has been able to express its views on all topics brought forth before the United Nations and has had the ability to bring forth topics for United Nations consideration while maintaining its democratic ideals and bringing these ideals to other countries.

THE CONFLICT WITH IRAQ

These democratic principles were severely shaken, however, when the United States Ambassador to the United Nations publicly stated that his country was intent on attacking Iraq with or without United Nations Security Council approval or backing.

The United States is ready to launch a unilateral war against Iraq if necessary and without recourse to the UN Security Council.

-US Ambassador David Welch[3]

This statement and the Bush administration’s push to war in the past year led many to question the intent of this war and the threat that Iraq posed to international security. Under the charter of the United Nations this push to war, stated many times by government officials as happening “with or without” the United Nations, is illegal if it is not sanctioned by the Security Council. Furthermore, this push to war was in stark contrast with historical American foreign policy when it comes to the United Nations and the use of force on other nations. American precedence for preventative attacks on other countries was set at the onset of the Cold War when President Truman said “You don't 'prevent' anything by war...except peace.”[4] This stance was reaffirmed by presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, as Kennedy said “(A preventative strike would be a) Pearl Harbor in reverse. For 175 years we have not been that kind of country.”

This represents a sharp break with past American practice. Even during the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy recognized the stringent limitations the Charter places on the right of self-defense. When intercepting Soviet ships carrying missiles to Cuba, he was careful to invoke the authority granted by the Charter to regional peacekeeping institutions. When America has invoked self-defense in the past, it was in response to clear threats by hostile nations to its soil or to its citizens.

-Yale Law School Prof. Bruce Ackerman[5]

The United States has historically supported the enforcement of all United Nations laws and seeks the enforcement of these laws throughout the world. It is important to note here that the United Nations only seeks to enforce its laws when they are being broken and the manner in which they are broken is voluntary and malicious. The foundations and power of the United Nations have now come into question with the American position that it has the right to act without the sanction of the Security Council. America saw itself enforcing United Nations Resolutions that already existed. However, American inflexibility on these United Nations resolutions discredited Security Council power thus affording the American Government instant autonomy in deciding when to attack. The unilateral strike severely discredited the Security Council and the advancements towards peace that it has made, as one of its permanent members was seen disregarding the same international law it helped established.

The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life… If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order.

-United States President George Bush[6]

It is clear that America ass in a bind. On the one hand, America was bound to protect itself, and it felt that Iraq posed a direct threat to its national security. On the other, it was bound by the same international law it helped establish and transport throughout the world, the international law that has served mankind well for the past two generations and which prohibits unilateral action. The reality is that United Nations resolutions were insufficient to satisfy American officials. President Bush realized that Iraq’s paltry arms were few. Bush believed that Iraq had chemical weapons and was seeking to acquire nuclear ones.

By going to war, the United States is in a situation in which it will lose. On the one hand, if Iraq possesses chemical weapons then going to war will force them to use these weapons as they did during the Gulf War, thus leading to casualties. However, if no chemical weapons exist then there is proof that the war was unjustified. By keeping the inspections going and demanding the full compliance of Iraqi officials, which they’ve begun to show in the past few weeks, we are advancing both of these goals: if chemical weapons are there we should be able to find them and we are preventing nuclear proliferation as inspections prevent Saddam from acquiring such weapons.

-Stanford University Professor Nina Tannenwald on May 20th, 2003

Since the end of major fighting in Iraq, the United States has discovered many things. The most important of these is that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, nor did it have the resources to run a nuclear program and furthermore there were no chemical or biological weapons of which to speak. This being said, the United States is fortunate that the international community has made very little of the fact that this unjustified, illegal war in Iraq led to the casualties of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians (an exact number remains unknown as American forces did not see it fit to count the number of Iraqis they had killed). Little has been said of the devastation that Iraq suffered structurally as tanks and fighter jets shelled Iraqi cities and its countryside into a state reminiscent of the Stone Age. Yet, as American officials continue to alter the original motive of this war from weapons of mass destruction (which didn’t exist), to removing a ruthless dictator from power (illegal as countries may have whatever government they choose), to bringing democracy to the Middle East (no Middle Eastern country has a democracy and non cherish it) the harsh reality is that the only truly secure pat of the country, more secure than the water and electricity supplies, more secure than even government headquarters in Baghdad are the oil fields that make up much of Northern Iraq.

Bush used United Nations resolution 1441 in order to attain his ultimate goal: toppling Saddam Hussein’s government and establishing a truly democratic state. This goal, however, is one which cannot legally be done under any circumstance under international law as no country has the power to decide for another country or government what form of leadership should exist within that country’s borders. America used the guise of defending itself from danger, which Bush claims existed from Iraq, in order to remove Iraq’s authoritarian regime. The Security Council was created to ensure that no country has the ability to impose its will upon another, to ensure that only the will of the world, which seeks to advance peace and human rights, can be imposed upon a country and to ensure that countries could live in relative governmental freedom. The Security Council was democratically created by the United States and its allies to ensure that the particular American goal of toppling Hussein’s government should never have been realized, thus proving the Security Council’s and the United Nation’s importance as the situation in Iraq is clearly much worse than it was before American forces “liberated” Iraqis to military rule, unprecedented crime, no viable police force or army, little hospital resources and no international aid other than that of the invaders of this Muslim nation.

There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship.

-Ralph Nader [7]

The United States is greatly altering its role as a proponent of the United Nations. The principle of defying international law, if justified for America, can be justified by all countries, including Iraq. This would lead to an authoritarian worldview as opposed to the democratic one the United States has historically supported. As such, America’s role within the United Nations must be revisited, and America must conform to United Nations regulations in order to preserve its role as a world leader and prevent isolation from the rest of the world which would lead to the demise of its liberal empire.

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

The United States position on the International Criminal Court seems to be somewhat similar to its stance on Iraq. Following deplorable human rights violations, ethnic cleansings, and genocide, specifically in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia in the past 15 years, the United Nations was faced with the gruesome reality that the tools with which it was disposed to effectively deal with the grand scale crimes against humanity perpetrated in this century were extremely inadequate to ensure justice. In 1998, the Rome Statute, the physical document potentializing[8] the existence of a new and completely international court bound to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression, was voted into existence by countries seeking to make accountable those responsible for these crimes. This potential became actuality in July 2002 when it was ratified by 50 states, the number agreed upon

by the representatives of states in Rome, including the United States.

This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Stature of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary’s status lists relating to this treaty.

-Government of the United States of America on May 6th, 2002.

However, the new U.S. administration chose to revoke its governmental support for the ICC nearing the eve of its becoming international law with the letter above quoted for a myriad of reasons, including its world vision in which the U.S. is the major player. “What is at issue here is much greater than the question of dealing with war crimes. The implicit dispute is one between three visions of world order following the cold war. The Bush administration supports unilateral, global US hegemony, even ‘empire’.”[9] The United States must become a party to this court if it wishes to retain its status as world leader in the area of human rights and uphold the preamble of its constitution “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” throughout the world. The ICC is attempting to ensure these ideals to the world and the United States’ opposition to joining this court, despite its contention that it is unable to do so, is a statement to the world that it has little respect for human rights, and even less respect for the international body entrusted to uphold them. The United States has the capacity and wherewithal to aid greatly in the assurance of justice and peace in the world and must have as its objective to protect and ensure human rights, not just American ones. America has seen the rights of its citizens violated throughout the world; whether it is at nightclubs in Bali, at embassies in Kenya or in Nairobi, or on its very own soil, with the dramatic attacks of September 11th. Reflecting upon these events, it is clear that America cannot effectively defend itself from all of the world’s threats and must cooperate with international bodies in order expand a world network seeking security throughout the world. The international criminal court is the extension of the unions created by the international community to further the aim of world peace by creating consequences for those who commit mankind’s most atrocious acts.

Article 27

Irrelevance of official capacity

1.         This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

 

2.         Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person. [10]

Despite this, America is entitled to an opinion on the matter of the International Criminal Court. The United Nations was created so that all countries could express their opinions, so that decisions could be made based on international consensus and so that laws of international importance could be implemented on a world scale to attempt to eliminate double-standards.

However, the United States is going beyond disagreement in its position. It is publicly choosing not to comply with new international law and is requesting the non-compliance of other nations with regards to the United States; a move which has overwhelmingly been rejected. The United States is attempting to undermine the authority of the Court by asking countries to sign Article 98: stating that if signed they would not hand over United States citizens who have been accused of committing one of the crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction. Moreover, countries have been requested by the United States government to hand over suspects of the U.S. government believed to have committed a crime under the Court’s jurisdiction to the American government rather than the ICC.

American government policy now stands in stark contrast to the values that it upholds and exports throughout the world. The United States cannot demand compliance of United Nations resolutions of other countries if it itself has openly decided to go against international law and has chosen to not respect such an essential part of international justice as the International Criminal Court. Moreover, it has requested that other nations join it in its unlawful position of non-compliance. The United States is based on the same principles as the United Nations: democratic ones. Within this context, there are moments when policy positions between the United Nations and the United States will differ. The important factor of democracy is that once majority vote is reached it must to be respected by all, not just those in agreement.

THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

The 1997 Kyoto protocol, signed by former president Bill Clinton, was seen by the United Nations as supremely important to prevent serious global environmental problems in future generations. The pact called for the world’s largest polluters to reduce their pollution output of greenhouse emissions. These gases prevent heat from escaping the Earth’s atmosphere, thus significantly contributing to global warming. The United States’ endorsement of this agreement displayed America’s multilateral foreign policy and its willingness to engage in environmental politics, despite fundamental problems with the treaty. The Kyoto protocol called for the reduction by 5.8% of 1990 levels of greenhouse emissions by each member country by the year 2012. The United States, which accounts for over 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases while housing within its borders just 4% of the world’s population, is by far the single largest polluting country in the world. This pollution affects not only Americans but all humans on the Earth, displaying the need for a multinational agreement clearly defining collective strategies and goals for reducing the negative externalities of production and consumption.

However, when the Bush administration came to office, it chose to remove itself from the treaty citing that the goals of the treaty were unreachable considering America’s poor economic performance and its dependence on green house gas emitting sources of energy. “We'll be working with our allies to reduce greenhouse gases,” Bush told reporters ahead of his meeting with (German Chancellor Gerhard) Schroeder. “But I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy and hurt American workers.”[11]

The points that Bush presents to justify removing America from the Kyoto Protocol are valid and important. However, these points demonstrate the importance of working within the broader context as a member nation of the Kyoto Protocol in order to ensure that some form of effective solution can be reached to prevent global warming. The Kyoto Protocol, as it currently stands, is far less demanding than it originally was by allowing countries to exchange emission credits for money and ensuring a global reduction rather than a country by country reduction, key American points concerning the accord. Furthermore, the percentage of greenhouse emission reduction has also been significantly decreased, from 5.8% in 1997 to the 1.8% of the final pact in 2002, another important American reason for withdrawal. This willingness to be flexible on the part of the international community is a sign to America that it is willing to work with industrialized countries if these countries are willing to work within the context of multilateral international agreements in order to achieve common goals.

The Bush administration was right to say that Kyoto was unworkable in America as Clinton signed it in 1997. In fact Congress voted 100% against it when the ratification process began. However, the Bush administration’s greatest failing when it comes to this is that it did not propose a solution or compromise about its concerns with Kyoto. It simply threw it in the trash, and this is not the type of response to adversity we expect from our president.

-Stanford University Professor Stephen Krasner

The fact that the Bush administration completely withdrew from the proposal is a sign that it is unfazed by the concerns of its allies and that it concerns itself only with immediate American interests, as opposed to international interests and future American ones. The withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol is indicative of the Bush administration’s isolationist foreign policy.

THE WORRYSOME FACTS

The United States is the world’s lone superpower. It produced 22.73% of the world’s production in 2000.[12] America spends more on defense than the next 15 highest defense spending countries on the planet combined per year. Despite these incredible numbers, the United States remains vulnerable to anti-American sentiment. This sentiment, dramatically displayed on September eleventh 2001 when America suffered its worst terrorist attack in history, is the result of an arrogance that America has displayed through its foreign policy since the end of World War II, and cannot be defended against by further isolation and defense spending. European resentment towards America is building as the United States is blatantly disregarding United Nations and European Union opinion that Iraq should not have come under attack. In the Middle East, the United States is preparing to defend itself from attack in Iraq after having toppled its government and crippled its economy and social services and is doing little to advance the plight of the Palestinian people; and beyond that there is an assumption that America is only looking out for its own interests in the area. In the Far East North Korea is preparing to manufacture weapons of mass destruction as it says it feels a direct threat by the American presence in the area. Beyond that, diplomatic relations with its neighbor Canada have been strained by the U.S. stance on Iraq and America’s seemingly unwillingness to participate in the international community.

By moving the United States sharply away from the concept

of cooperative security and a world governed by international

law and established norms of behavior, and potentially

substituting unilateralism and preemption in its place, I

believe that the administration's policy runs the real risk that

the United States will become increasingly isolated and alone,

and dependent on its military might to protect its interests and

its citizens.

-California Senator Diane Feinstein in February 2003[13]

Despite these realities, America boldly acted “with or without” the United Nations or the broad agreement of the international community and further alienated its closest allies. Since the end of the war in Iraq, the United States has found that the results of its unilateral stance (despite Britain’s presence in Iraq, it is clear that it is the United States that is spearheading the operation in Iraq: read the coalition is nothing more than two countries and some paid supporters) have led it to an isolated position in the world’s eye as it has been unable to find contributors of significant numbers of soldiers or funds and its diplomatic relations throughout Europe and the Middle East have been sorely strained. Beyond these diplomatic realities, it has also found that the Iraqi people themselves do not take kindly to the occupation of their country by “gentiles” and Americans traveling around the globe have encountered hostility in lieu of their position regarding the utility of the United Nations. Despite Bush’s contentions that the Security has become severely “weakened” as a source as world security, it is this very same council that the United States had to creep back to earlier this fall asking those nations in the council whom it had previously called cowards for troops and monetary aid because it was unwilling to commit the resources necessary to complete the mission it had started as it had underestimated the sizeable job of destruction that its massive military force would inflict.

THE SOLUTIONS

In order to rectify these problems America must first change its leader. Bush’s unilateral worldview will lead America to protect its own interests feverously as opposed to seeing the broader spectrum and consequences that international affairs entail. This can easily occur in next year’s presidential election as the democratic counterpart for the election must point to these critical flaws in the Bush administration’s foreign policy in order to prevail.

I think that even if the Clinton administration had taken the same stance on Iraq they would have had much greater success in acquiring the required Security Council votes because it would be seen as a multilateral administration taking a stance on one topic. The Bush administration seems to have taken stances on every project that does not involve direct profit to the United States.

-Stanford University Professor Nina Tannenwald

Beyond this, the United States must ensure that presidential administration changes do not lead to complete reversal of foreign policy, as happened with the Bush administration’s drastic change to the Clinton administration’s multilateral worldview. In order to ensure that changes in American foreign policy do not change with different administrations, and in order to ensure a continuous American foreign policy the United States should form a specific foreign policy commission that exists for the sole purpose of determining foreign policy in the context of long term international relations. This new commission would report directly to Congress. Official presidential foreign policy changes (i.e. signing and withdrawal from international treaties as well as U.S. stances on United Nations related topics) would have to be approved by Congress, who would have the benefit of this commission’s advising. This commission would have the power to present important foreign policy proposal changes to Congress. The president would be intimately involved in this process and would have veto power. However this veto could be overruled by the Senate, which would be consulted only if the president chooses to exercise his/her veto and Congress chooses to bring the case before the Senate. The president’s foreign policy proposals would be subject to Congressional approval, and if Congress rejects the proposal it would have to detail its problems with it and where it could be improved to further help the United States. In the short run, the goal of this committee should be to secure continuity in American foreign policy while integrating international values into the current system of American politics. The ultimate goal would be to create an American foreign policy which would sustain America’s wealth and influence throughout the world while calming anti-American sentiment, especially in the Middle East. By working through the United Nations to settle conflicts in the world rather than imposing the unilateral view of the United States, America will be able to prevent unilateral action which sparks conflict and remorse by securing America’s international alliances and allies.

THE FUTURE DEPENDS ON THE DECISIONS OF TODAY

America can ill-afford to isolate itself in today’s nuclear world. Weapons of mass destruction loom large in many countries, and their acquisition, which once required billions of dollars in defense spending on research and development, can now be had on the black market at fractions of the former cost. Much like England successfully relinquished its world dominance at the beginning of the 20th century, America must join the international community instead of holding on to its empyreal mercantile isolationist worldview. This is essential to avoid the disaster of Ancient Empires such as the Roman Empire, who held on to their superiority too long, and failed to recognize the true moment available for compromise. The United Nations is America’s avenue to maintaining its position of power, while sheltering itself from the backlash of those countries who feel they are oppressed. The United Nations will bolster America’s long term prosperity, rather than destroying as the Bush administration seems to believe.

WORKS CITED

1. Bush defends rejection of Kyoto



2. Bush's speech on the future of Iraq, February 17th 2003.



3. Charter of the United Nations



4. Country Listing by Country GDP – 2000



5.

6.

7. Interview with Stanford University Professor Nina Tannenwald

8. Interview with Stanford University Professor Stephen Krasner

9. Oxford English Dictionary



10. Quotes to inspire you – Ralph Nader



11. Rome Stature of the International Criminal Court



12. The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emption



13. The Legality Of Using Force -An Op-Ed by Prof. Bruce Ackerman



14. US ready for unilateral action against Iraq if necessary: US ambassador



WORKS CONSULTED

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. universe/document?_m=481e29bc5a16e4b220e4a7a1a4564c6f&_docnum=11&wc hp=dGLbVtb-lSlzV&_md5=c8240d3484d4954cc259672ec85fa0e9

6. universe/document?_m=845474203932dde552c888b09705b743&_docnum=2&wc hp=dGLbVzz-lSlAl&_md5=85bb7597bc6bb63ebcb4bcd5c9d14357

7. Interview with Stanford University Professor Nina Tannenwald

8. Interview with Stanford University Professor Stephen Krasner

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37. (ABM)

-----------------------

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8] Definition of Potentializing

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download