HINT: It has nothing to do with Iraq's rights, violations of UN resolutions, or anything like that. Nor does it have much to do with oil. Yes, I KNOW the French and Russians have a $20 billion debt or so in Iraq which they fear they will lose in a "new" Iraq, but, just between you and me, I think they know there isn't much chance of the "old" Iraq paying it either; if anything, the US, which assumed the colonies' debt when it was created as a matter of principle, is very likely to make the "new" Iraq honor any old debts Saddam had acquired quite faster than Saddam himself would.
It is, rather, that the UN is fighting for its survival. IF they fail to stop the US here--and I am by no means sure that they will--it would be tantamount to a declaration of bankrupcy.
Of course, it DID declare its MORAL bankrupcy long time ago. Witness its disgusting treatment of israel, for instance, or its making Libya head of the human rights commission, or its total failure to prevent any massacre of innocents with its "peace keeping" forces unless the US intervenes. (Remember Kofi Annan, at the time head of the UN peacekeeping forces, hastily pulling all UN troops out of Ruwanda once the rebels made clear they would butcher anybody that stops them from butchering their enemies?) But at least such things can be buried in the "local news" section, or simply ignored.
But here I am talking about POWER bankrupcy, that is, admitting to themselves that they are not only morally corrupt and inefficient, but literally impotent: that they can't stop anybody from going to war. So the UN opposition is not really "anti-americanism" per se, in my opinion. It is just that both sides--the US and UN--have foolishly climbed on a very high tree in this diplomatic conflict. Whether intentionally or not, the situation now is that neither can back down without serious loss of prestige and international influence.
I agree that the US has much more power than the UN. I also agree that it has much more prestige. However, if the UN loses here, and the US attacks Iraq, it is the end of its life as a body of any importance, whether moral or simply political. Which means they would fight to the bitter end to stop the US from going to war with Iraq; I would not consider it beyound the range of possibility that the UN would decide to "condemn" the US and call for sanctions on it for "acts of agression against Iraq", for example.
This is why I am not sure, like many here, that it will not be the US that backs down and not the UN. The UN will have nothing left if it loses here; the US will still be influential, and it might decide to give the UN another lease on life even at the cost of international embarassment. As the old fable says, the US is only fighting for its prestige here; the UN, for its life--which means it might very well win.
It is, rather, that the UN is fighting for its survival. IF they fail to stop the US here--and I am by no means sure that they will--it would be tantamount to a declaration of bankrupcy.
Of course, it DID declare its MORAL bankrupcy long time ago. Witness its disgusting treatment of israel, for instance, or its making Libya head of the human rights commission, or its total failure to prevent any massacre of innocents with its "peace keeping" forces unless the US intervenes. (Remember Kofi Annan, at the time head of the UN peacekeeping forces, hastily pulling all UN troops out of Ruwanda once the rebels made clear they would butcher anybody that stops them from butchering their enemies?) But at least such things can be buried in the "local news" section, or simply ignored.
But here I am talking about POWER bankrupcy, that is, admitting to themselves that they are not only morally corrupt and inefficient, but literally impotent: that they can't stop anybody from going to war. So the UN opposition is not really "anti-americanism" per se, in my opinion. It is just that both sides--the US and UN--have foolishly climbed on a very high tree in this diplomatic conflict. Whether intentionally or not, the situation now is that neither can back down without serious loss of prestige and international influence.
I agree that the US has much more power than the UN. I also agree that it has much more prestige. However, if the UN loses here, and the US attacks Iraq, it is the end of its life as a body of any importance, whether moral or simply political. Which means they would fight to the bitter end to stop the US from going to war with Iraq; I would not consider it beyound the range of possibility that the UN would decide to "condemn" the US and call for sanctions on it for "acts of agression against Iraq", for example.
This is why I am not sure, like many here, that it will not be the US that backs down and not the UN. The UN will have nothing left if it loses here; the US will still be influential, and it might decide to give the UN another lease on life even at the cost of international embarassment. As the old fable says, the US is only fighting for its prestige here; the UN, for its life--which means it might very well win.
