IS THE U.N. WORTH IT?

The value of the United Nations is a question that I have debated with myself for years. Two articles in the Washington Post on Tuesday and Wednesday this week stirred me to write about this subject.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2006, in an article by Fareed Zakaria titled “Why Iraq is Still Worth the Effort”, he supported military intervention to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, but was “appalled by the crude and unilateral manner in which the Bush administration handled the issue”. Did he want a U.N. resolution before we attacked? My instinct tells me that if we had waited for the U.N. Security Council to take action, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Hussein’s troops would still be killing the Iraqi people at a rate of 70-125 per day. Iraq would be actively supporting Al-Qaeda, they would be training terrorists, and they would be sending terrorists to hit our embassies, our ships, and our homeland.

My distrust of the effectiveness of the U.N. in the Iraq situation is based on the fact that France and Russia (both permanent members of the Security Council) were implicated in the United Nations Food For Oil scandal. Based on the show Breaking Point on the Fox network October 17, 2004, there is strong evidence in the Duelfer report that Russian, Chinese, and French companies were selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. French officials were receiving payoffs from Hussein to the tune of $2.9 billion dollars, and directing French companies how to take advantage of this situation. This was still occurring only twenty days prior to the start of the Iraq war. Hussein knew that France and Russia would not agree to support a U.N. invasion of Iraq, or join the coalition, due to their financial involvement, and he gambled that we would not invade without their support.

Hussein did not acknowledge that he had destroyed his chemical weapons because he felt that would be perceived as weakness in the Middle East. He planned to resume producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have been in full production within two years of sanctions being lifted. He was pursuing missile systems, tanks, anti-tank weapons, and nuclear materials, and also had plans to develop a terrorist weapon using aerosol ricin. Waiting longer for France to join the coalition would have just given Saddam more time to increase arms and to set up a stronger defense. Sen. John Kerry’s statement that he would not have gone to war with Iraq without the United Nation’s full support would only have played right into Saddam Hussein’s plan.

The Tuesday March 21, 2006 article by Dafna Linzer titled “Security Council Fails To Reach Accord on Iran” makes me wonder if the United Nations is capable of addressing the most important issues of our time. Can there be any doubt that Iran wants to obtain nuclear weapons? I believe that all the members of the Security Council agree on this. This time it is Russia and China who oppose sanctions. Are they benefiting from Iranian nuclear development? How dependent is China on Iranian oil? Russia and China want the crisis given back to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which they believe would be more likely to pursue a negotiated settlement. The IAEA has been negotiating with Iran for at least two years and has reached the conclusion that the issue needed to be escalated to the Security Council. Iran has broken its November 2004 agreement to suspend its uranium enrichment program. The Iranian government has told the world they have resumed uranium enrichment work. Getting into more negotiations is a good way for Iran to stall, giving them more time to continue nuclear development. The United States, France, and England believe the threat of sanctions would cause Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activity. This crisis seems to be clear-cut. If the Security Council cannot come to an agreement on strong and immediate action against Iran, then the United Nations must be considered impotent.

For me the United Nations has limited value. It does a good job with humanitarian help, and does provide peacekeeping forces where needed. It does provide a forum for countries to discuss issues, and some things have been accomplished. But if we cannot correct the corruption within the organization and establish a higher level of ethics for all involved in U.N. operations, and if the permanent members of the Security Council can not put their own jingoistic needs aside and do what is right for the world, its value will always be limited. I believe we need the U.N. and must keep it going, while understanding that on major issues or crises where the Security Council fails to act, nations will be likely to take action on their own.