With war imminent, many Americans are wondering if the United States should remain party to indecisive international organizations such as the United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization given their inept handling of the current Iraqi crisis.
As the world’s only superpower, the United States occupies a unique position on the world stage. America finds itself taking a leading role in enforcing the will of the international community, often in actions sanctioned by intergovernmental bodies such as the United Nations and NATO. One is reminded of the Gulf War of the early 1990s, or the NATO actions in Bosnia under the Clinton Administration. In short, the United States expends a great deal of resources supporting these organizations.
Despite the apparent successes of these organizations, reluctance on the part of the United Nations and NATO to deal with Iraq has proven just how shaky international alliances can be, and calls into question America’s support of them.
Take the United Nations, for example. As stated on its Web site, the “primary responsibility” of the U.N. Security Council is the “maintenance of international peace and security.” With this in mind, the Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 in November of 2002.
Far from being a new mandate, Resolution 1441 represents a culmination of more than a decade of resolutions and threats made by the Security Council regarding Iraqi disarmament in the wake of the Gulf War. Resolution 687, passed in 1991, required Iraq to provide the United Nations with an “accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure” of “all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction,” as well as any ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and to provide “immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access” to weapons inspectors.
Declaring that Iraq “has been and remains in material breach” of this previous Resolution 1441 was supposed to give Saddam Hussein one last chance to comply with U.N. demands, and threatens “serious consequences” for non-compliance.
However, when Iraq was recently found to have undeclared and illegal chemical warheads and ballistic missiles, and has continued to impede inspections in various ways, the Security Council has balked. At the urging of several nations, the council has simply refused to enforce its own resolutions, instead choosing to drag the process out.
Displaying a similar reluctance to fulfill its self-proclaimed obligations, it took weeks for NATO members to even agree to begin planning for the defense of Turkey in the event of an Iraqi war, reported CNN.com.
Although the alliance has proven durable after past strains, some see this situation as a bigger test. According to Robin Oakley of CNN, Henry Kissinger calls the rift the “gravest in the Atlantic alliance since it was formed,” and the American ambassador to NATO says it faces a “crisis of credibility.”
Despite the trend toward international cooperation seen in the modern world, current divisions in the United Nations and NATO reaffirm the simple reality that nations will pursue a foreign policy that advances their national interests.
Acceptance of this fact means that the United Nations and NATO may not be as important as many perceive.
In addition to being prone to indecision, international organizations, by their very nature, represent a threat to national sovereignty.
Although membership in a voluntary military alliance such as NATO certainly has the potential to present such a threat by dragging the United States into somebody else’s war, a few of the United Nations’ recent proposed policies are especially instructive in this regard.
To begin with, one must acknowledge that the United States is alone in the world regarding its respect for and protection of personal liberty. The fact that the United States supports an organization that currently seats Libya and Syria on its Commission on Human Rights, two countries whose records on human rights are less than credible according to Human Rights Watch, should cause great discomfort.
With a membership such as this, Americans should not expect the United Nations to respect their ideals. Some agreements sought by the United Nations, such as international provisions aimed at curbing the illicit trade of firearms, or the institution of an International Criminal Court, would even undermine the Constitution itself.
In his Farewell Address of 1796, former President Washington explicitly warned future generations of Americans against engaging in “permanent alliances.”
Given the fact that such alliances present an inherent threat to national sovereignty, and after witnessing the United Nations’ impotence and NATO’s reluctance regarding the present crisis with Iraq, perhaps American policy makers should finally heed that advice.
Severing international ties
March 6, 2003
0
Donate to The Battalion
$1015
$3500
Contributed
Our Goal
Your donation will support the student journalists of Texas A&M University - College Station. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs, in addition to paying freelance staffers for their work, travel costs for coverage and more!
More to Discover