Can America go it alone?

Cavalier Daily (U. Virginia) ^ | 2/18/03 | Laura Sahramaa

[NorCoGOP]

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. -- From Rome to Seoul, Johannesburg to Melbourne, people have been calling for peace. As part of a global protest on Saturday, the streets of 150 U.S. cities and an estimated 350 cities around the world were filled with demonstrations against war in Iraq. In Berlin, up to 500,000 protestors gathered in the city's center to support German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's calls for a peaceful solution. In London, 750,000 people marched against war, appealing to British Prime Minister Tony Blair to reconsider his support of the use of force to disarm Iraq. At the New York rally, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa declared, "Let America listen to the rest of the world -- and the rest of the world is saying, 'Give the inspectors time.'"

The world is saying no to war, but America isn't listening. Dissenting opinions voiced in the halls of the United Nations and in cities across the globe are falling on deaf ears as the United States sets a dangerous example for future superpowers that find themselves without equal on the world stage.

President Bush told the United Nations last Thursday that the organization must assist him to confront Saddam Hussein or "fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant, debating society" ("Bush urges U.N. to confront Iraq," The Associated Press, Feb. 13). If the United Nations ultimately proves toothless, it will be because the Bush administration's actions have made it so.

The efficacy and power of an international organization is only as strong as its members' willingness to honor their pledge, outlined in the U.N. Charter, to combine their strength and use it through methods and at times on which the body comes to agree.

President Bush has shown that his administration's willingness to cooperate and compromise dissipates when he can't convince other U.N. member states to see things his way. His determination to oust Hussein with force -- regardless of other U.N. member countries' wishes for alternative solutions -- will be what robs the United Nations of its teeth and will set a dangerous precedent for future unchallenged superpowers to follow.

This precedent is that when it comes down to it, a superpower should feel free to ignore the United Nations and act unilaterally, disregarding the protests of member states and their citizens. And they have a right to protest: When the United States wages war on Iraq, it will directly affect them. Economies of the world over will be beset with uncertainty; refugees from Iraq and surrounding nations pouring into neighboring states will cause social instability. Most important, the threat of biological and other types of warfare affect everyone -- the nations in the vicinity of the warfare and in its path, not just the nations actually making the war.

In this increasingly interdependent world, no country, and especially not the only superpower in the world, can make as momentous a move as declaring war without profoundly affecting other countries. The fact that countries share fates is particularly true when speaking of developed nations that share markets, cultures and even citizens. In this kind of a world, it would only be half-facetious of a Swedish citizen to suggest that he get a vote in America's presidential elections too. After all, whose decisions ultimately affect him more -- those of Sweden's president, or those of the American president?

In a way, Swedish citizens -- and others worldwide -- are supposed to have a vote in the United States' decisions, and that influence is supposed to be exercised through the United Nations.

Like it or not, the United States is part of a team, and as the world's lone superpower, it has to fight for the interests of all nations, not just its own. This charge takes more than the form of an unvoiced duty, a tacit expectation; it was pledged by the leaders of this nation just shy of 50 years ago. By signing the U.N. Charter, the United States pledged to fulfill the new body's goal of preventing war and promoting human rights. The United States agreed, along with other member states, to "unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest."

Most of the people and countries protesting the Bush administration's determination to bulldoze over everyone who doesn't agree with it in its march toward war aren't asking for the United States to ignore Hussein or stop its efforts to diminish the threat he poses. They're simply asking for time, for a chance for the U.N. inspectors to do their jobs and for what the inspectors find to be carefully considered by the United States and the United Nations. According to the precedent the United States is setting, in future configurations of international power, the United Nations and the world will speak, but the superpower will not listen. This precedent is dangerous in terms of what, under its auspices, a lone superpower has license to do: namely, whatever it pleases, at any cost to the nations whose fates are inextricably intertwined with its own.

[NorCoGOP]

"Let America listen to the rest of the world -- and the rest of the world is saying, 'Give the inspectors time.'WE HATE YOU"

[MHGinTN]

Where's the damn barf alert? Laura Sahramaa hasn't a clue just how much of the world is actually waiting with baited breath for our forces in a coalition of the willing (growing every day) to decapitate the demon of Baghdad and his Ba'athist Party of ghouls and goons.

[wildwood]

what the crap is this about "going it alone"????? i guess france, germany and belgium mean everyone is against us....this is crap, crap, crap....no one who makes hard decisions is well-liked, especially by the "kids" who NEED a big brother.

[No Truce With Kings]

There we go again, marching off on our own with only Britain, Australia, India, Spain, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Japan, Lithuania, Lapthia, Estonia, Albania, Slovenia and Bosnia supporting us.

It's lonely out there little company. Just ask France. Or Germany.

[KC_Conspirator]

"Let America listen to the rest of the world -- and the rest of the world is saying, 'Give the inspectors time.'WE HATE YOU"

That is exactly right. The rest of the world (i.e., France and Germany) are against us because they are envious of our superior nation and also against us because of their leftists ideologies. This unhealthy combo leads leftists to support murderous dictators over great democracies. Its a sickeness or disease I tell you!

[templar]

In a way, Swedish citizens -- and others worldwide -- are supposed to have a vote in the United States' decisions, and that influence is supposed to be exercised through the United Nations.

Nope.

[matcrazy]

Not at all : Poland (my homecountry), Czech and Hungary supports the USA and there were not any protests against the USA and the war against Iraq (except A FEW people) in Poland last weekend.
Oh, we were blamed by French President and now people criticize France (and Germany) very much here.

I think we (Poles) should:
1. Withdraw our petition to enter the EU and form our own economic union.

2. Protest the French blackmail with our money by boycotting French products (I will never buy French wine, time for Californian ones :-) and any tourism to that country.

3. Cut off diplomatic relations with France.

Am I wrong?
Voice from Poland.

[tessalu]

I would hope that we just bomb Iraq, and then go home, and wait and see, and not put American or any other troops at risk, until the chemical and biological questions are answered. No lives should be risked needlessly.

[caltrop]

Yup, you're exactly right. That's why they've been so unsupportive and so unwilling to help in our effort in Afghanistan. (sarcasm)

[JIM O]

America can go it alone. The only problem I see with moving quickly is that the rest of the peacenik human shields may not get there in time.

[onedoug]

We Are Not Alone

[discostu]

Everytime somebody talks about "going it alone" the US media should feel shame. The alliance is huge, one of the largest ever assembled. People shouldn't even have feelings about the US going it alone because it's not happening, that's like having feelings on Santa Claus, no reason to think about the imaginary.

[Moose4]

Ms. Sahramaa, may the ghost of UVa's sainted founder, Thomas Jefferson, visit your dorm room tonight and give you the Screaming Wedgie of Truth. They say he walks the campus at night, although to be honest, these days, he's probably too embarassed to be seen out there with the likes of you.

Now I'm double glad I didn't go there.

}:-)4

[vaudine]

Your ideas are all good. I am glad to be on the same side with Poland. I have long admired the Poles ad also felt bad (in a historical sense) that your country was so buffeted by Germany and Russia.
I have not said anything, but I,too, am boycotting anything French. They were arrogant when I lived in Europe and continue to be--they were also dirty (1960's).
Vaudine

[KC_Conspirator]

I am exactly right. What did they do in Afghanistan? They delivered food. Thats fine. Why else would you think they are threatening other nations liek those in eastern europe to what is tantamount to economic sanctions.

[enemy9oclock]

"Like it or not, the United States is part of a team, and as the world's lone superpower, it has to fight for the interests of all nations, not just its own."

What they REALLY want is for us to fight for everyone's interests EXCEPT our own. If it's good for the U.S., it MUST be inherantly bad for the rest of the world.

[caltrop]

No, you're exactly wrong. Four Canadian soldiers were killed in the field by US friendly fire, the Germans have a large contingent in Afghanistan and nobody objected to our attack on Afghanistan. Almost every other country supported our attack on Afghanistan. Iraq, however, is a different story. The reason isn't that everyone hates us, the reason is they don't think we've made the case. Given the fact there's no credible connection between Iraq and AQ, they're correct.

[KC_Conspirator]

No, your exactly wrong, johnson. The topic was France and Germany. Sending troops is not required, but they are impeding actions on 17 UN resolutions. Thats 17. France's recent runaway best sellers was about how the attack on 911 at the Pentagon was faked by President Bush. They attack and vandalize McDonald's because its American. Twice as many Jews are leaving the country because of anti-Semitic acts. (Hell Belgium just tried to indict Ariel Sharon). Germany on the other hand is run by American hating leftists who were once street fighters for the Bader-Meinhoff gang. They recently ran a political campaign based solely on anti-Americanism. And thank God for Ms. Germany offering her services to service Saddam Hussein. No, I don't see any envy in their culture whatsoever. (sarcasm off)

Canada was not the topic, but the truth is self evident. Not being American is part of being Canadien.

This country has more immigrants come to it every year than all others combined. Oh yeah, were hated alright.

[KC_for_Freedom]

His determination to oust Hussein with force -- regardless of other U.N. member countries' wishes for alternative solutions -- will be what robs the United Nations of its teeth and will set a dangerous precedent for future unchallenged superpowers to follow

Too bad the UN did not pass resolutions and stuff to make Sadam back down. Too bad it is the use of US force that has brought us to the present hide and seek game. (The most we will get out of the UN.) Too bad that we have more work to do than play games.

Too bad, the UN as abody can never agree on enforcement, too many nice restaurants in New York to visit. But you can write you piece and add it to the work of those trying to raise up Sadam and bring down Bush.