![]() |
|
The newsletter of United
Nations University and its international network of research and training centres/programmes |
|
Issue30: March-April 2004 | |
COMMENT
How the Iraq war By Ramesh Thakur 'Twas a Dickens of a year for the United Nations - the worst of times and the best of times. The advocates of war condemned us for failing to enforce Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions; opponents faulted us for failing to punish the aggressors. Pre-war polls consistently showed that for most people in the world, UN blessing was the circuit-breaker in endorsing the war option. After the war, most people still look to the UN as our best hope for unity in a world of infinite diversity, where global problems require multilateral solutions. To Washington, the US wasn't turning its back on world opinion - the world had become anti-American. Iraq was ruled by a rogue who had long pursued the clandestine acquisition of weapons of mass destruction; used biochemical weapons against his own citizens and neighbours; perpetrated horrific human rights atrocities; attacked Iran and invaded and annexed Kuwait; and defied the UN for 13 years. The
crisis with North Korea proved the wisdom of dealing with Saddam Hussein
before he got his hands on nuclear or other equally powerful weapons; to
wait for the morning after would surely have been nuclear folly. Another
argument held UN authorisation as necessary but not sufficient. There was
grave disquiet that the UN was being subverted to a predetermined agenda
for war. Reasons for the strong anti-war sentiment included doubts over
the stated justification; anxiety about its incalculable toll, course and
consequences in an already inflamed region; Last year the crisis was seen to be the result of US belligerence, not Iraqi aggression. If the Security Council had authorised war, it would have been seen to have caved in to American threats and bribes. People look to the UN to stop war, not wage one. Sometimes
war will be necessary. The will to wage war will weaken if force is used
recklessly, unwisely and prematurely. Legitimacy is the conceptual rod that connects power to authority. On Iraq, the US and the UN provoked a legitimacy crisis about each other: of American power and UN authority. The
certainty of moral clarity put the Administration on a course that
seriously eroded its moral authority for the exercise of US power in the
world. The lack of a sense of moral clarity diminished the UN's moral
authority. Ramesh Thakur is Senior Vice-Rector of UN University and Assistant Secretary-General of the UN. This commentary first appeared in the January 15 edition of The Age, Melbourne. These are his personal views. |
|
Copyright © 2004 United Nations University. All rights reserved. |