The United Nations Security Council has been rendered irrelevant by the United States and Britain along with countries that are in support of their pre-emptive war with Iraq. The Security Council should be applauded for its resolve and wisdom in doing everything it can to avoid war on the contrary. Avoiding war and maintaining peace throughout the globe is the ultimate responsibility and determination as declared in the United Nation Charter. Why is the United Nations under fire from the Bush Administration for doing its job and not dancing to Bush’s war drums?
Since its creation, the United Nations has often been called upon to prevent disputes from escalating into war, to persuade opposing parties to use the conference table rather than force of arms, or to help restore peace when conflict does break out. Over the decades, the United Nations has helped to end numerous conflicts, often through actions of the Security Council — the primary organ for dealing with issues of international peace and security.
The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter, which incidentally, America has withdrawn from because they cannot manipulate that body. There was no American representative at the last meeting held recently.
The missions and purpose of the United Nations Security Council is crystal clear according to it charter, as reads: WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED:
Article 2, line 4 reads: 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 inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations.
It is quite obvious that the actions taken by the American Government under the Bush administration is inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. So why the hue and cry over the fact that the UN is doing its job by trying its best to avoid war and maintain foster the peaceful disarmament of Saddam Hussein?
Obviously, the behavior, and the comments made by members of the Bush administration in light of the current crisis in Iraq leads to the belief that the US thinks it is too powerful to be part of the word body which will stick to the principles of its charter instead of acting in accordance of the whims and fancies of the almighty United States of America. The US is seen as thumbing its nose at the UN when it disagrees with the US. They have withheld dues from the UN for many years.
It is evident that the US expects the UN to agree with everything it says and does as in the issue of the human right seat. Stephen Zunes explains it well in his article Foreign Policy In Focus
The decision by the U.S. Congress to withhold $244 million in dues owed to the United Nations only builds upon the growing global perception of U.S. arrogance. In recent days, both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have placed themselves to the right of even the Bush administration in their sharp anti-UN rhetoric. For over fifty years, the United States has used the Human Rights Commission to advance its ideological agenda, attacking the human rights record of countries America did not like, while defending and covering for regimes with as bad or even worse records that happened to be seen as strategic or economic allies.
Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the U.S. has sent more weapons to oppressive police and militaries around the globe than any other nation. The list of dictatorial client-states supported by the U.S. is a veritable rogues' gallery of the most serious human rights violators on the planet: Suharto of Indonesia, Mobutu of Zaire, the Shah of Iran, Park of South Korea, Marcos of the Philippines, Pinochet of Chile, and literally dozens of others.
To this day, the U.S. arms and trains Colombian armed forces closely linked to right-wing paramilitary organizations engaged in gross and systematic human rights abuses. The School of the Americas at Fort Benning--despite recently being renamed--continues to train some of the worst human rights abusers in the hemisphere. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, billions of dollars worth of arms flow to the misogynist family dictatorships of the Arab Gulf while Israeli occupation forces use American weapons to rain death upon protesting Palestinian children.
As recently as two months ago, the U.S. cast the sole dissenting vote against a UN Security Council resolution to send unarmed human rights monitors to the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. Despite strong backing by reputable human rights groups from around the world, the resolution was defeated--even congressional Democrats rallied around the Bush administration in support of America's veto.
Unfortunately, that vote on human rights monitors was not the first time the U.S. has used its veto power to shield allies from criticism at the United Nations. Nor is the Human Rights Commission the only forum where the U.S. has stood out for its opposition to basic human rights: The U.S. is one of the few countries to oppose the international treaty to ban land mines, which, if enacted, would save thousands of children from death and maiming every year. It is the only country in the world besides Somalia--which hasn't even had a government for years--to refuse to sign an international convention against the use of child soldiers.
As if to underscore its contempt for the UN's human rights efforts, the Bush administration nominated John Negroponte as the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. As ambassador to Honduras during the 1980s, Negroponte covered up widespread human rights abuses by Honduran army units trained and organized by the CIA, and withheld evidence of large-scale human rights violations by the U.S.-backed government from congress. In effect, the chickens have come home to roost.
America’s record in the UN is not one of democracy, international unity, or cooperation, it is one of a bully as detailed by The AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective A.V. Krebs issue #139 January 11, 2002
There is a certain hollowness to President-Select George W. Bush's calling for a unified coalition of cooperation throughout the world at the same time wrapping so-called "free trade" agreements in the flag all in the name of fighting terrorism.
Of course, past administrations and Congress are not entirely blameless in buying into such hypocrisy.
As for the general American public most remain in the dark when it comes to the point of their nation saying one thing and doing quite another when it comes to the world's greatest --- and only --- "super power" giving the type of genuine moral and political leadership necessary to build a "global village."
The principle that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done is as foreign to our political leadership as is the reality that billions of people on this earth hold this nation in contempt and a road block to genuine world peace.
So while the Bush Administration and Congress profess wanting to put an end to terrorism, violence and war their actions betray their words. As proof of such one needs to examine a list put together by Z Magazine's Richard DuBoff --- America Alone!
Washington’s refusal to push Israel to compromise has strengthened right-wing political leaders like Ariel Sharon.
The U.S. has undermined the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions, including those involving Israel’s ongoing illegal settlement activities on occupied Palestinian land, and has failed to support basic principles of international law that are fundamental to establishing Israeli-Palestinian peace.
The U.S. continues to arm and support Israeli occupation forces despite their ongoing human rights violations.
As long as U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic support of the Israeli government remains unconditional—despite Israel’s ongoing violation of human rights, international law, UN Security Council resolutions, and previous agreements with the Palestinians—there is no incentive for the Israeli government to change its policies. The growing Arab resentment that results can only threaten the long-term security interests of both Israel and the United States.
The Palestinians are an occupied population, not unlike the Kuwaitis under Iraq in 1990-91 or the East Timorese under Indonesia from 1975 to 1999. However one may wish to challenge the tactics or ideology of the Palestinians resisting the occupation, the onus of responsibility lies with the Israeli occupiers and the U.S. government that supports them. The decision by some Palestinians to engage in violence can in large part be attributed to disillusionment over Washington’s refusal to live up to its obligations to enforce United Nations resolutions that call on Israel to abide by basic principles of international law.
For years, the United States refused to allow the Palestinians to even take part in the peace process, on the grounds that the PLO would not endorse UN Security Council Resolution 242, which requires Israel’s neighbors to provide security guarantees for Israel in return for an Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands seized in the 1967 war. Once the PLO endorsed the resolution as the basis of peace, however, the U.S. quickly backed away from its support of the resolution. In fact, the U.S. has formally vetoed and informally blocked scores of UN Security Council resolutions criticizing ongoing Israeli violations of international law and basic human rights, and Washington has prevented the enforcement of the few resolutions that have passed.
One of the major obstacles to Israeli-Palestinian peace is the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. These settlements were established in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids an occupying power from colonizing territories seized by military force. This principle is reiterated in UN Security Council Resolution 446, which requires Israel to withdraw from these illegal settlements. However, not only has the U.S. refused to insist that Israel abide by this resolution, Washington has even secured additional aid for Israel to construct highways connecting these settlements and to provide them with additional security, thereby reinforcing their permanence. This places the United States in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 465, which “calls upon all states not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories.”
The White House contends that the Oslo Accords render such UN resolutions obsolete. However, such resolutions cannot be reversed without the approval of the UN body in question; the U.S. cannot unilaterally discount their relevance. Neither the secretary-general nor any other member of the UN Security Council supports the U.S. position. Furthermore, no bilateral agreement (like Oslo) can supersede the authority of the UN Security Council, particularly if one of the two parties (in this case, the Palestinians) believes that these resolutions are still binding.
Detailed reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN High Commission on Human Rights, and independent Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups have demonstrated that the Israeli occupation forces are the major perpetrators of the violence. This probably explains why Israel has refused to allow an independent international commission to investigate the violence or to allow UN peacekeeping forces into the territories, as the Palestinians have demanded.
Particularly disappointing to Palestinians’ sense of justice is Washington’s refusal to join the international community in its condemnation of Israel’s ongoing human rights violations. The U.S. recently abstained in an otherwise-unanimous UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel for its human rights violations and voted against similar resolutions by the General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution in October 2000 by a margin of 365-30 blaming the Palestinians exclusively for the violence and declaring its solidarity with the Israelis. Both Al Gore and George W. Bush made similar statements in the waning days of their presidential campaigns, as did the congressional leaders of both parties. Such actions, reinforced by Washington’s decision to supply Israeli occupation forces with weapons, have essentially given Israel the green light for its ongoing repression and led Israel’s political right wing to electoral victory.
It is therefore quite understandable why the United States is no longer trusted to be an honest broker in the negotiations. It is also not surprising that so many Palestinians have resorted to violence in demanding rights denied them by a “peace process” so antithetical to their legitimate aspirations.
Finally both Bush and Tony Blair realized how urgent it is to deal fairly with the Palestine/Israel issue as reported in the telegraph Blair and Bush in war summit By George Jones, Political Editor and Toby Harnden (15/03/2003)
President Bush announced yesterday, in a surprise move that the United States would publish a long-delayed "road map" on the Middle East peace process as soon as the Palestinian Authority appointed a prime minister, possibly next week.
In a carefully coordinated response, the Prime Minister said the plan could lead to a comprehensive settlement and a viable Palestinian state by 2005.Mr Bush and Mr. Blair hammered out the deal on the Azores summit and the Palestinian road map, which was drawn up by the "quartet" of the United States, Russia, European Union and UN, in two telephone calls on Wednesday and Thursday.
Sources in Washington said that Mr. Blair had argued passionately that a public attempt to be "even-handed" in the Israel-Palestinian conflict would help Arab allies in the region as well as his own difficulties with public opinion and Labor backbenchers.
There has been widespread criticism in the Arab world and beyond that the US has vigorously pursued Iraqi violations of UN resolutions while ignoring those by the Israelis.
Mr. Bush reaffirmed his support for a "viable Palestine". He said Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must end as progress was made toward peace, and the Arab states must oppose terrorism.
Mr. Blair rejected suggestions that publication of the document was a cynical attempt to shore up Arab support on the eve of conflict with Iraq. But he said Britain and the US needed to show the Arab and Muslim world that peace between Palestinians and Israelis was important at a time when there was so much focus on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
It is also no in no way a coincidence that President Bush sees now sees it fitting to pay the dues the US has been withholding from the UN. Is that in hope that America will now get its way? Mr. Bush has finally signed a Senate bill authorizing the second of three payments of the arrears. He said the payment fulfills the commitment he made to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in March.
The House approved paying $582 million in back dues late last month, just hours after Mr. Annan called for the United Nations to play a major role in the fight against terrorism. In his signing statement, Mr. Bush referred to the body's key role in "eliminating sources of funding for terrorist operations. This release of funds will enhance the close bond between the United States and the United Nations and will help to facilitate the work the United States carries out in concert with other U.N. members," Mr. Bush said. In 1999, Congress passed a law stipulating that the United States would pay $926 million.
When all these facts come to light, it is does not reflect the high road that the Bush administration seems to be taking on world affairs, instead the world questions their moral authority and sees the U.S.A as a bully who expects everything to go its way with no regard for what anybody else thinks and will go to the extreme of holding the UN hostage to meet these ends. America now enjoys the position of being the only superpower in the world. This is a position that the government and people of the US do not fail to make clear at every opportunity. There are over 6 billion people living in this world, 270M (5%) live in America and consume over 25% of the world’s resources. What happens to the other 95% of the world’s inhabitants without a body to look after their interest and very survival? The UN may not be perfect, considering all the dynamics involved in its operations, but it is inconceivable to think of the world without an international body to protect the rights of world’s population. One big powerful America and those it considers to be its friends would determine who survives and who perishes, who remains in bondage and gets freedom, who remains poor and who gets richer and richer. What a world that would be! The United Nations is not only relevant, it is crucial and the world must do everything in its power to keep it functional.