ahead 1 page to

Part 5

Iraq & A Hard Place Part 4 - 

Myths & Legends: International Law

23, 2003 43: AM CST

The myth of unilateralism has largely served to mask a larger myth – the idea that international law and the United Nations should dictate the US reaction. The Bush administration has repeatedly asserted that the UN risks irrelevancy by failing to act against Iraq, but he is wrong. The reality is that the UN already is largely irrelevant, and has been for some time. It suffers from the same shortcomings that plagued the United States under the Articles of Confederation. Because of its limited taxation authority it has little control over its own revenue. But more importantly, because it has no military force of its own, it lacks any ability to enforce its own will. Any UN decisions can only be enforced if its member states are willing to enforce them. What’s more, the five permanent members of the Security Council can – and do – simply veto resolutions that conflict with their interests.

Furthermore, I’ll argue that the world isn’t ready yet for a truly effective United Nations. Is it really in America’s best interests for countries like Uganda or North Korea to have an equal say in world politics? Is it in the world’s best interests? The reality is that the United States is forced to look out first and foremost for its own interests in foreign affairs because that’s what every other nation on the planet is doing.

There is exactly one nation on earth that opposes US policy on Iraq solely for the purpose of keeping Saddam Hussein in power: Iraq. The Chinese aren’t opposed to an invasion because they’re pacifists; they’re against it because they don’t like the precedent of the US invading a sovereign nation to depose a leader we don’t like. They know we’re not very fond of them, either. The Russians have been fighting they’re own wars in Chechnya for most of the last decade. They certainly aren’t pacifists, either. They oppose the war because they have a huge financial stake in the matter.

Europe is considerably more complicated. There, government opinion largely is shaped by public opinion, and the public really is mainly against the war on moral grounds. However, I am convinced that the governments would support us anyways (as Tony Blair does in Britain), except for a few important details that have received little media attention. Europe is far closer to the war zone than the US, and as a result will feel the impact far more. Any short term destabilization due to an invasion will be keenly felt. Also, for simple reasons of geography Europe gets far more of its oil from the Middle East than America does. They are far more likely to feel the effects of rising oil prices.

In the current case, France must be considered separately from the rest of Europe. In recent weeks, they have made it abundantly clear that their real aim is not peace but thwarting the US. In the long term, France aims to create a European counterweight to the United States, with France itself in control of that Europe. Personally, I would have no problem with this at all if they sought to do it by bringing Europe up to our level. Instead, they are seeking to bring the US down a peg. In doing so, they have overplayed their hand. I believe that they have seriously underestimated the long term diplomatic repercussions of their actions.

Part 5