|
| |
The
UN Continues
To Invalidate Themselves
EDITORIAL
Frank Salvato
September 25, 2003 |
As
President Bush neither apologized for the coalition’s actions nor
gloated about the fact they did the right thing without the backing of the
politically crippled United Nations, it became evident the UN is facing a
crisis of validity, definition and identity. Utilizing a system that caters
more to a world operating in the World War II Era rather than the 21st
Century and encumbered by the growing manipulation of individual country’s
political agendas, the UN General Assembly sat politely as the president
reminded them of their obligation to their mission statement.
The alphabet media’s take on the reaction to the speech was not unexpected.
They spun the facts of the matter to make the moment critical to President
Bush when the fact of the matter was that couldn’t have been further from
the truth. The spotlight for this moment of truth shined on the United
Nations as a whole and effective body. The UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan almost had it right in his statements to the assembly when he
stated that the UN had reached a moment in which they had to redefine
themselves in order to be effective in the 21st Century. Disappointingly, he
strayed from the importance of this message when he felt he had to address
the validity of removing eminent threats to the world’s security prior to
the moment they released their brand of hostility unto their intended
victims.
In the 21st Century there is a responsibility to prevent rogue nations,
nations founded on the ideals of terrorism, and organizations championed by
said nations, from wrecking havoc on legitimate and peaceful governments and
their people. Whether the oxymoron of a military solution for the prize of
peace is palatable or not is quite irrelevant, although shortsighted peace
activists will argue otherwise. More important is our ability to grasp the
reality of the age that we are living in.
There
are groups that exist such as al Qaida, Hamas, Islamic
Jihad and others who are harbored, whether passively or not, by nations
that would champion their causes. The past regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq
serve as proof positive of this reality. In Afghanistan it was the Taliban,
at one time a legitimate government but a government that made a conscience
decision to forfeit its legitimacy by championing and harboring those who
were openly and actively plotting against the people and governments of
genuine and sovereign nations. In Iraq it was the totalitarian regime of
Saddam Hussein who not only terrorized his own people but also
passively championed the aforementioned terrorist groups to the extent that
they had outpost headquarters in several towns within the Iraqi borders.
These headquarters were not hidden in the caves ala Torra Bora but existed
as storefronts on the main streets of Iraq’s prominent cities. As they
plotted and amassed the capabilities to carry out their terrorist activities
Saddam Hussein sat idly by thus himself becoming a passive part of their
actions and a target for the War of Terror.
One of the questions that faces the United Nations as a legitimate body
devoid of any self-absorbed notions and thus bolstering its validity is
whether it stands for promoting peace and denouncing terrorism to the point
of its eradication or whether they would continue to embrace the idea that
the sanctity of sovereignty should stand regardless of the fact a nation is
opening and actively abetting and/or promoting future and potential
hostilities toward another nation. Is it acceptable to allow a group of
terrorists, in essence a hostile political faction, to plan, amass the
ability and then execute acts of terror on innocents under the protection of
the sanctity of sovereignty provided by the inaction of the United Nations?
Is it acceptable to condemn the victim nations of said attacks for their
retaliation if they can remove the threat by whatever means necessary before
they strike again? Simply stated, the United Nations must redefine itself
and its mission statement so that it can defend and champion any actions
taken by those victim nations who find themselves targeted by the acts of
terrorists.
Another question and problem that needs to be addressed by the redefinition
of their mission statement and the restructuring of their operations is how
to keep individual countries and the coalitions they may assemble from using
the United Nations for their own narcissistic means. It was never so evident
than during the debate and final vote of UN Security Council Resolution 1441
that one country, namely France, was able to manipulate the applied
intentions of this international body for its own monetary and political
gain. As they amassed the few countries that would stand in opposition to
the serious and severe consequences Resolution 1441 called for they
attempted to bolster their political standing in the world as the lone
opposition to a phantom monopoly on authority they perceive the United
States as having. They used the bully pulpit to manipulate potential members
of the European Union while masking their narcissism with the perceived
legitimacy of the United Nations. This became apparent when it was
discovered that France had never stopped doing business with Iraq during the
time there were UN sanctions in place demanding that the world do so. For a
single nation to deny a world body the ability to champion what is right for
its own egocentric purposes is for that world body to be a failure.
As the alphabet media spins its politically liberal rhetoric to portray the
moment as President Bush’s to either succeed or fail, it is in reality the
defining moment for the United Nations. Either they can rise to the occasion
and redefine themselves as the world body they envision themselves to be or
they can become quite inconsequential on the world stage. In the global
chess match that is international politics it is the UN’s move and the fate
of their legitimacy hangs in the balance.Frank Salvato
is a political media consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He
is a contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch, GOPUSA,
OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press & AmericanDaily. His
pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared as a guest on
The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad
Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been recognized by the
Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally featured in The
Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as other national and
international publications.
|
|
