Wednesday night, President George W. Bush declared war on Iraq. With that announcement, the doctrine of war has been changed, and the power of the United Nations has been jeopardized.
At the center of the issue is the reduction of the United Nations' clout as a peacekeeping force. Throughout his push for war against Iraq, Bush has made it clear that at no point during the process did he feel U.N. approval was necessary to achieve his ultimate goals. If one of the key creators of the United Nations considers the body's approval irrelevant, what hope do we have that other nations will choose to follow its advice?
When the United Nations was created in 1948 on American soil as a revamped League of Nations, the intent of the founding nations was clear. Through the creation of the Security Council of five permanent members with power to veto resolutions placed before them, the balance of world power was created. If the goal of world peace were to be achieved, it was necessary to balance the introduction of nuclear power with a global peacekeeper. In today's case, the United States and France are both using their positions to circumvent that peacekeeping goal.
While France's declaration to veto any resolution that specifically called for war was an overt attempt at keeping peace, its sweeping hand approach to the process was equally hurtful to the spirit of the United Nations.
Bush's desire to go to war has long been clear in the United States and it was with this goal in mind that he approached the United Nations to gain international support. His attempts failed, however, as the majority of nations in the Security Council expressed support for inspections and continued global deterrence. The entire world agreed that Iraq was a threat, and the growing rift over how to properly deal with that risk should have shown that one country should not make decisions that will have global effects. By disregarding the advice of the other countries in the council, Bush rendered the system of checks and balances irrelevant.
The rift between Bush's vision and the rest of the world's echoes the growing gap in Congress. Last year, the Senate gave up its ability to declare war. Currently, Democratic senators are speaking against Bush's actions, and while it is admirable that they are representing their constituents against the war, it should be remembered that they played a hand in achieving this end. The Bush administration's failure to consider dissenting views at home and abroad undermines the notion of the democratic process and diplomacy.
The world is now left with the ramifications of Bush's actions, and the process of rebuilding the trust in the United Nations will be both costly and lengthy. The United States cannot continue to isolate itself from the global community and abandon international treaties and rules of law. It cannot hold the world up to a certain line, and then pass it whenever it feels like it. If there is no balance of power, or same set of rules in the international realm, the world as a whole is in a precarious position.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
