President Bush's major address yesterday to the United Nations
General Assembly in New York was a powerful wake-up call for an
organization that is in danger of becoming irrelevant on the world
stage.
The President's speech projected clarity, vision and direction,
three qualities sorely lacking in a UN organization that looks more
like a glorified debating society than a serious global body
designed to confront the world's growing threats and
problems.
Restructure the UN
It was both a passionate defence of US policy on Iraq, as
well as a clarion call for the UN to address the rising double
threat posed by international terrorism and rogue states developing
weapons of mass destruction.
President Bush also urged the UN to "act decisively to meet the
humanitarian crises of our time", from fighting the AIDS epidemic
to combating famine and human trafficking. The UN's credibility in
recent months has been gravely damaged by the fall from grace of
the organization's Commission on Human Rights, which notably failed
to voice any concern over the plight of the Iraqi people under
Saddam Hussein. Libya's chairmanship of the Commission and its
courtship of practically every brutal dictatorship from Sudan to
North Korea, has gravely damaged the UN's reputation.
Unsurprisingly, the latest polls show that 60 percent of Americans
believe the United Nations is doing a "poor job". It is an
organisation already existing on life support. If it is to avoid
going the way of its predecessor, the League of Nations, it must
undergo radical restructuring, including revision of its Charter,
reform of its major Commissions, and the streamlining of its
bloated bureaucracy.
Terror Networks and Rogue States
President Bush warned of "the deadly combination of outlaw
regimes, terror networks, and weapons of mass murder" and called on
the nations of the world to "have the wisdom and the will to stop
grave threats before they arrive." While avoiding making direct
reference to North Korea, Iran and Syria, three states developing
weapons of mass destruction, there were echoes of the 'Axis of
Evil' speech in 2002 that served notice to rogue states that the US
will not tolerate outlaw regimes that threaten international
security.
The Security Council should support the President's call for the UN
to adopt a new anti-proliferation resolution designed to
criminalize the spread of WMD if it wishes to be seen as a credible
force for security on the world stage. Indeed, the relevance of the
UN in the coming months will be sorely tested by its willingness to
deal with the growing crises over nuclear weapons production by
Pyongyang and Tehran.
Defense of Iraq Policy
In his address, the President passionately defended the decision of
the United States, Great Britain and key allies to remove Saddam
Hussein from power and to embark upon the rebuilding of the Iraqi
nation from the ashes of tyranny. The credibility of the United
Nations was largely shattered by the Security Council's failure to
address the Iraqi threat.
President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair displayed
outstanding world leadership at a time when the United Nations
demonstrated a lack of moral fortitude and a blatant unwillingness
to enforce no less than 17 resolutions calling for Iraqi
disarmament. There is little doubt that the appeasement of the
brutal Iraqi dictatorship by members of the UN Security Council
will go down in history as one of the most shameful episodes of the
early 21st Century.
The President was right in his speech not to make any major
concessions to nations such as France that opposed the liberation
of the Iraqi people, and which have insisted on UN control of
post-war Iraq. The French, suffering from delusions of grandeur
concerning their position on the world stage, are keen both to
undermine US policy in Iraq while at the same time enhance their
own interests in the country. A UN-run post-war administration
would merely serve as a Trojan horse for European nations opposed
to regime change, enabling them to stake their economic and
strategic claims in Iraq
President Chirac's call for the almost immediate handover of power
to the Iraqis was both mischievous and irresponsible, and should be
dismissed. It should of course be a key goal of the Bush
Administration to hand over power to a new Iraqi government
following free elections as soon as it is feasible to do so.
However, the US and Britain must first ensure that the foundations
are laid for a secure and prosperous Iraq, free of the threat of
terrorism and tyranny.
Negotiating a New UN Resolution on Iraq
In his address to the United Nations, President Bush
successfully struck a delicate balance between maintaining US
control in Iraq and offering the UN greater involvement in shaping
the future of the Iraqi people. The President called on the UN to
assist in the writing of a new Iraqi constitution, the training of
civil servants and the supervision of future elections.
However, in its negotiations for a new United Nations Security
Council resolution on Iraq, the Bush Administration must reject any
resolution that dilutes the political and military powers of the
Anglo-US administration of the country. While the United States
should welcome greater involvement by the UN in humanitarian relief
operations in Iraq as well as post-war reconstruction, Washington
should oppose giving the UN a lead role in administering the Iraqi
nation.
The United Nations should continue to play a subordinate role in
post-war Iraq, with the United States and Great Britain taking the
lead in administering the Iraqi transition government. The US and
UK must be able to ensure that their key aims in Iraq are
successfully carried out without UN interference.
UN Influence Diminishing
President Bush's speech to the General Assembly will undoubtedly
fuel a further bout of soul searching at the United Nations, almost
a year after he warned that the UN could be doomed to irrelevance.
The United Nations continues to slowly decline as a force on the
world stage, and will go the same way as the League of Nations
unless it is radically reformed and restructured.
The UN failed spectacularly to deal with Saddam Hussein, and its
influence is likely to diminish further in the coming years unless
it demonstrates a greater willingness to address the threat posed
by international terrorism, state-sponsors of terror, and rogue
regimes developing weapons of mass destruction.
Nile
Gardiner, Ph.D. is Jay Kingham Fellow in
International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation