Skip to comments.Sterling Rome: Proof For The UN Means More American Dead
Posted on 09/06/2002 7:11:42 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
As international discussions continue about proposed U.S. military action in Iraq, the Bush administration is being asked to answer every conceivable question, while the Iraqi government is being asked - nothing.
The United Nations, openly hostile Arab nations and our weak-willed European "allies" suggest that unilateral U.S. military action in Iraq would be a violation of law, and that we do not have the right to pre-empt Iraq's development of nuclear weapons.
With the anniversary of Sept. 11 fast approaching, it is remarkable that the international community seeks "proof" that an Iraqi nuclear program might be a threat.
Since there is now not a shadow of doubt that many Middle Eastern countries are actively involved in promoting terrorism or harboring those who practice it, the idea that the onus is on a country that has been attacked to "prove" why it is taking action against an enemy borders on insanity.
When Iraq decides to share its nuclear weaponry with terrorist groups like Hamas or al Queda - and Tel Aviv or even Washington, DC is vaporized leaving hundreds of thousands dead - will the international community still be asking for "proof?"
The glaring flaw in the UN is an insistence on finding equanimity under even the most egregious circumstances. While international delegates are busy writing decrees that consistently condemn the United States, countries that openly promote slavery are allowed to chair the Human Rights Commission; nations that deny the existence of the Holocaust are allowed to host summits on racism.
Whatever hypocrisy may exist in U.S. foreign policy, the belief that our flaws are equivalent to those of Libya or Iraq indicate ignorance of reality or a double-standard that will always implicate the American position - even when we are the victims.
The idea that we ought to respect Iraqi sovereignty until such time as Saddam Hussein can reach his goal of becoming even more of a threat amounts to the international community refusing to condone U.S. action in the Middle East until more innocent Americans die.
To President Bush's credit, he has not forgotten what he saw on September 11, and he has not allowed the smug anti-Americanism of the UN and liberal-elite Europe to lure him into believing that it is more important to appease our enemies now, and put off the suffering for another time - and maybe some other president. In other words, Bush will not leave to his successor in the White House what was left to him.
There has been literally no rationale given for why Saddam Hussein might curb his appetite for weapons of mass destruction, and no indication of what the UN is prepared to do to make him cooperate. In fact, the UN pretends an Iraqi weapons program must be "proven" to exist even after Saddam has already used some of those weapons on his own people.
The United Nations cannot enforce its decrees. It refuses to distinguish between perceived oppression and real oppression, and because so many of its members are openly envious of the power and success of American democracy, it is implied that the deaths of innocent Americans are somehow less valid than the deaths of innocents elsewhere.
Liberal European countries are often given a pass because they submit willingly to UN approbation and agree to shoulder blame for failed governments in UN-member countries for which they couldn't possibly be responsible.
Meanwhile, the United Nations doctrine seems to have become one that blames the United States anything and everything, and holds us to the highest possible standards. Meanwhile, other nations are responsible for nothing, and are held to no standard at all.
All this leaves President Bush in a difficult situation. He is being asked to rely on an openly hostile United Nations to protect American lives. He is being told that international opinion is more important than reality. He is being cajoled into believing that the diplomatic thing to do is to do nothing.
Diplomacy between men of good will has spared many lives down through history, but diplomatic negotiation is only a tool to gain leverage when there is little or no good will to be had.
Our enemies have proven that they cannot be bought with American foreign aid and other largess. They've also proven they haven't the slightest concern for international opinion. They do not seek resolution or compromise; they seek power and control by any means necessary.
Unlike past conflagrations, they do not fear us in theory. Thus, they must be made to fear us in fact and in practice.
Wishing for peace is not enough. Despite utopian talk to the contrary, wishing has never been sufficient, and the United Nations only works when nations are united in their commitment to negotiation. Given the enemy we face today, there is only one issue to negotiate:
Do we go down willingly - or do we intend to fight?
Send a Letter to the Editor about this commentary.
For evil to succeed all that is required is for good men to do nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.