COLUMN: UN-wanted–Don’t let Bush kill the U.N.
“Cry, ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war.”
The rhetoric may have changed since Shakespeare penned that arresting line in his epic masterpiece, “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar,” but the illustrious bard would be all too familiar with the political drama President George W. Bush is directing from his bully pulpit on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Alas, the die is cast, the hazard must be run. We are marching to war, and like Brutus, we’ve convinced our fellow conspirators — including Britain, Australia, Spain, Turkey and possibly even France — to go along. While the French have committed support only if Iraq uses biological or chemical weapons against U.S.-led forces, its softened stance on the issue comes as sweet music to the warmongers’ ears.
But there is no wisdom in this impending action. And any justification the president may have offered in his well-rehearsed address to the nation on Monday seems to founder in the face of irony: There is nothing more insulting to the intelligent mind than the notion of waging preventive war to secure peace.
It also marks a dangerous shift in U.S. foreign policy. If we’re willing to pound a country to smithereens simply because we think it might pose a threat to us sometime in the future, what’s to stop us from waging war with North Korea? Or Libya? Or Cuba? Or Syria? Or any of the other nations that have earned that abhorrent moniker of “rogue state”?
More importantly, what does such unilateral action on the part of the so-called “coalition of the willing” mean for legitimate international organizations, such as the United Nations, with a mandate to maintain world peace?
These are rhetorical questions with obvious answers. The fact of the matter is, the United Nations will die a slow death, and ours will be the hand that drives the stake through its heart.
Historically, we’ve been responsible for sidelining the United Nations in virtually every decision of consequence. Our resolve to attack Kosovo in 1999 left the Security Council hopelessly divided. A year before that war, we joined forces with our trusty chums in Britain to launch a four-day bombing offensive against Iraq, when it refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to carry out their work freely. Now, once again, the Security Council is rendered irrelevant.
A decade ago, it was hoped that the end of the Cold War would reduce deadlocks in the Security Council, but with the brief exception of the 1991 Gulf War, that has not transpired — in large part, because of our complete disregard for the effects of our actions.
There’s not much we can do about the inevitable, except hope for an early end to the fighting. However, there is a lot we can do to ensure that this tendency to wage war in the name of stomping out terrorism does not prevail. We need to encourage diplomacy and constructive foreign policy. Yes, I’ll admit this may sound hackneyed or feeble, but in the end, it is less expensive and infinitely more logical.
Say no to war before this lunacy wrecks our world and destroys the very institution designed to keep the peace.
Leon D’Souza is a senior majoring in journalism. Comments can be sent to leon@cc.usu.edu.