February 8, 2003
FORCING THE CONTRADICTIONS:
Annan: Iraq issue 'not for any one state' (UPI, 2/8/2003)U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned Saturday against unilateral U.S. military action in Iraq, saying a possible war is an issue "not for any one state, but for the international community as a whole.""When states decide to use force, not in self-defense but to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations Security Council," Annan said in an address at the College of William and Mary, where he received an honorary doctorate during ceremonies marking the school's 310th anniversary.
"States and peoples around the world attach fundamental importance to such legitimacy, and to the international rule of law."
Chief among the many beneficial side effects of the war against Saddam will be the death of the UN, EU, and NATO as functioning (or malfunctioning) institutions. The UN in particular spent its first forty years trying to stop us from defeating communisn and has apparently decided to
expend its last gasps trying to stop us from defeating Islamicism. Its death comes late, but not too late. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 8, 2003 1:15 PM
o.j., the UN has survived some very ignominious situations, and it will survive this one as well. Perhaps people of good will simply need something like the UN so that they can say, "We have sincere concerns that are more noble than craven, national self-interest." But for whatever the reason, the UN isn't going away.
As for the EU, its status is peripheral to the anticipated Iraq war. The development of the EU appears to be proceeding according to a certain logic known only to Continentals (of which I am not one). Don't count it out yet.
NATO -- its death notices long preceded la affaire Iraq. It "lives" out of bureaucratic inertia, and will continue to do so until the USA formally pulls the plug.
The UN operated for its first 50 years in a unique situation, as it and everybody else tried to figure out how to absorb a bunch of primitive tribes masquerading as modern states.
That the result was rather like Dr. Johnson's opinion of women novelists is not surprise.
Whatever your judgement of the first half-century of the UN, that indicates nothing one way or the other about the next half-century. It's a whole new ball game.
Annan seems ill equipped to help out, still offering lame ideas whose utility was proven nil 65 years ago.
Harry, what you say about the UN is interesting and possibly prophetic. But you offer no rationale for your opinion.
And I believe Dr. Johnson made his comment about women preachers. It was George Eliot (Marian Evans) who famously expressed her annoyance with silly "lady novelists."
The UN will stay around because a significant fraction of the public believes in the ideal, and no politician will want to offend them by sliding his own dagger between its ribs. However, we will see it gradually become irrelevant in and of itself, pulled out only when convenient for politicians and supported only as long as it serves the aims of powerful nation-states.
Posted by: pj at February 9, 2003 8:34 AMThe problems with the UN are not bugs, but features. The UN was designed as it was because it was developed in the aftermath of WWII and at the beginning of the Cold War. I don't think it can be changed for use in the modern world short of being razed and rebuilt.
To do this, the roadblock is the one that PJ points to. But how far would the US public have to travel to make it politically possible (if not particularly popular) for the US to pull out? And could the UN really survive that pull out?
Going back to the article, it seems to me Mr. Annan mis-spoke. He appears to favor the "rule of international law", not the "international rule of law".
Posted by: pj at February 9, 2003 8:35 PM