Radiofree West Hartford -- Q & A - The UN and Iraq by Tom Evers

THE CROW'S NEST:

Q & A - The UN and Iraq

By Tom Evers

October 08, 2002

It's true that most people don't have either the time or inclination to spend hours reading volumes on the history of Iraq, or studying the complex political nonsense at the United Nations. People only know what the nightly news spoon-feeds them; and to be honest - after a long days work and the desire to spend time with the family, about 15 minutes of nightly news is all the public can take.

Lately, with all of the activity in the air, people have been coming to me and asking basic questions about these kinds of things. Being an advocate for public enlightenment, I propose the following answers to your questions.

Q: I don't understand why member states in United Nations are opposed to military action against Iraq. Wasn't the UN founded to protect the common good?

A: The United Nations was founded after World War II (circa 1947) with the notion that countries could work together to prevent future global conflicts. The intent was that the world community would deal with madmen like Adolf Hitler before it became too late. In concept, the idea makes sense - the world has a problem and everyone comes together and pitches in to solve it - but in reality, that's far from how nation states really operate. One man's tyrant may be another man's ally.

The United Nations is made up of both rich and poor nations. Many of them have no love for the United States. Many of them are not democracies. Not knowing any better, many member states see us through very jealous eyes, as if we somehow owe them something. They are not focused on right or wrong, or democracy and tyranny, instead they are focused on finding ways to make the United States send them money, or surrender our resources.

Iraq is not foremost on these nations' minds. In fact, many of the nations take some enjoyment in watching the world's superpower punished regardless.

Q: Yes, but aren't there existing resolutions about Iraq and weapons inspectors? Isn't the International Community responsible for upholding the rule of law?

A: Yes, there are many UN resolutions on the books that apply to Iraq - pursuant to weapons inspection, behavior toward Kuwait, no fly zones, and other matters. The problem is the fact that the UN will not enforce the resolutions already on the books. Weapons inspectors have been taken on guided tours, given limited access, and Iraq continues to threaten its neighbors.

Theoretically, the UN is supposed to uphold the rule of law, and follow through on its mandates. Including existing resolutions.

Q: We'll, why isn't the UN enforcing existing resolutions?

A: Most nations are not concerned with Iraq. Some of our allies, including France, are in support of lifting sanctions against Iraq so that they can purchase oil and make business deals. When nations like France,

Russia and China see no value in enforcing the sanctions or resolutions against tyrants, then there really is no point in voting on resolutions that will never be enforced. The United States and Britain are standing alone on this one.

Q: Why don't our allies support us? France, Germany, Russia, and other democracies?

A: Our allies are very self-centered people. When they need something from us, they are quick to call, but when we call -- the phone is busy. With the exception of Great Britain, our allies spend most of their time complaining about how we conduct world affairs. Germany is nearly a lost cause because of their post-WW II pacifist nature (which permits them to avoid military expenses and spent money on strengthening their economy), France wants to negotiate with tyrants to make a few dollars, Russia wants to make business plans with the tyrants, and the remainder of the nation states sit idly by, and feel no inner desire to get involved in what's considered "an American problem".

Q: But isn't Iraq a world problem?

A: Iraq is clearly a threat to world peace. Intelligence agencies show that Iraq has a program to develop chemical and biological weapons. There is also evidence that Iraq is trying to obtain the ability to create nuclear weapons. It is frightening to imagine what Hussein would be like with advanced weapons like these.

Q: Isn't this alarming? Has Iraq threatened the world community?

A: Although they despise the West and Western culture, Iraq has only threatened two countries: The United States and Israel. Our allies apparently aren't concerned with these threats. Hussein is smart enough to focus his rhetorical attacks on us. Why would he attack other countries and widen the conflict. Why would he speak badly of nations like Germany, which is openly condemning military action against his country?

Q: Ok, what about the other nation-states in Iraq's region?

A: While it's probably true that most of the countries in the Middle East have no love for Saddam Hussein, rightly or wrongly they see the United States as: 1) trying to dominate their region in order to gain control of every drop of oil in the Middle East, and 2) a Jewish-controlled nation blindly supporting Israel in the regional conflict. Iran, for example, had a long military conflict with Iraq and privately wouldn't mind seeing Hussein yanked from power, but since the United States is seen as the greater evil they remain silent on the matter of Iraq.

Saudi Arabia is the biggest disappointment. Information shows that many of the September 11th hijackers had a Saudi background; this also includes another madman: Osama Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia, once a strong ally of the United States, has moved from a moderate Arab state to an extreme Arab state. Saudi Arabia is also believed to have connections to Al Qaeda.

Q: But wouldn't Iraq use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons against its neighbors?

A: Yes, they probably would. But right now they are preoccupied with the United States and Israel. And for the moment, their neighbors are siding with them in their arguments against the United States.

Q: Wait a minute, if Iraq is trying to build a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon program, shouldn't the world community use common sense and shut it down or destroy it?

A: There is no "common sense" in global politics. This is why history repeats itself. One would think this kind of threat would prompt nations to unite. But then one thinks of how WWI and WWII started and this isn't much different. Only the names of the villains and countries involved have changed.