Role of the United States and the United Nations

Historically, the United States has spearheaded United Nations policy as one of its founding countries, as a permanent member of the Security Council and as one of the world’s lone super

The Role of the United States and the United Nations

By Gerrald Commissiong

0“[T}he United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to "make sure that the force of right will,

in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force”

Another resolution is now before the Security Council If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as

a source of stability and order If the members rise to this moment, then the Council will fulfill its founding purpose.

I've listened carefully, as people and leaders around the world have made known their desire for peace All

of us want peace The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the civilized world; the threat to peace comes from those who flout those demands If we have to act, we will act to restrain the violent, and defend the cause of peace And by acting, we will signal to outlaw regimes that in this new century, the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected.” 1

President George W Bush addressing the American Enterprise Institute on an imminent war with Iraq

on 02/26/02

Wars have dominated mankind’s history to the point where history is most often recounted as a string of wars transpiring one after the next As man’s thinking evolved throughout the second millennium, especially during the twentieth century, it became evident that our technological advancement was coming to the frightening point where entire populations could be wiped out with the single push of a button; as happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki This gruesome reality, tragically realized during the First and Second World Wars, led to the foundation of the United Nations, a union of nations from around the globe whose main purposes are to prevent such wars and uphold human rights through diplomacy and strategic military action

To maintain international peace and security; and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats

to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace

-United Nations Security Council Charter Article 12

1 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/27/1046064150688.html

2 http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

This extremely lofty mandate of world peace and security which has been set for the United Nations will most likely never be realized Despite the imminent impossibility of its mandate, its directive has proven effective in preventing grand scale wars and in seeking to better the living conditions of humans around the globe in the past

half-century Furthermore, the United Nations has had a significant impact on diplomatic relations between countries and has sought to exert its influence to promote its mandate, above quoted Historically, the United States has spearheaded United Nations policy as one of its founding countries, as a permanent member of the Security Council and as one

of the world’s lone superpowers Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has emerged as the world’s lone superpower, as a bastion of democracy and it has advocated the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the world; all consistent with

popular world opinion Towards the beginning of 2002, only months after America suffered its worst terrorist attack in history, the president of the United States, George Bush, made clear his intentions to invade Iraq in order to disarm this country which Bush considers “armed and dangerous” This led to debate around the globe as to the validity

of such an invasion Iraq has been described by many American government officials as a part of the “Axis of Evil” because they suspect that Iraq supports terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and that Iraq had produced military arms which extended far beyond the limits allowed by United Nations resolutions passed after the Gulf War However, many other countries, such as France, Germany and Russia, disagreed with these

American views and expressed this within the forum of the United Nations Furthermore, the United States has been seen increasingly in opposition with the United Nations and

the larger international community on such critical matters as the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol These American inconsistencies with United Nations policy have led many to question the new role of the United States within the United Nations as the world’s lone superpower in this new millennium The reality is that by diplomatically isolating itself from the rest of the world, America is repeating the errors

of previous world empires and this isolation will ultimately lead to its demise

THE UNITED NATIONS

The United Nations was founded upon the democratic principles of countries voting for laws, resolutions and military actions to be enforced equally throughout the world The objective of the United Nations has always been to provide a forum where countries are able to discuss possibilities and move to action based on world consensus and the international community’s backing The criteria defining world consensus is clearly stated within the United Nations charter These principles are very similar to the American principles of States Rights and Representation within the Union As such, the United States has been able to express its views on all topics brought forth before the United Nations and has had the ability to bring forth topics for United Nations

consideration while maintaining its democratic ideals and bringing these ideals to other countries

THE CONFLICT WITH IRAQ

These democratic principles were severely shaken, however, when the United States Ambassador to the United Nations publicly stated that his country was intent on attacking Iraq with or without United Nations Security Council approval or backing

The United States is ready to launch a unilateral war against Iraq if necessary and without recourse to the UN Security Council.

-US Ambassador David Welch

This statement and the Bush administration’s push to war in the past year led many to question the intent of this war and the threat that Iraq posed to international security Under the charter of the United Nations this push to war, stated many times by

government officials as happening “with or without” the United Nations, is illegal if it is not sanctioned by the Security Council Furthermore, this push to war was in stark

contrast with historical American foreign policy when it comes to the United Nations and the use of force on other nations American precedence for preventative attacks on other countries was set at the onset of the Cold War when President Truman said “You don't 'prevent' anything by war except peace.”4 This stance was reaffirmed by presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, as Kennedy said “(A preventative strike would be a) Pearl

Harbor in reverse For 175 years we have not been that kind of country.”

This represents a sharp break with past American practice Even during the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy recognized the stringent limitations the Charter places on the right of self-defense When intercepting Soviet ships carrying missiles to Cuba, he was careful to invoke the authority granted by the Charter to regional peacekeeping institutions When America has invoked self-defense in the past, it was

in response to clear threats by hostile nations to its soil or to its citizens.

-Yale Law School Prof Bruce Ackerman 5

The United States has historically supported the enforcement of all United Nations laws and seeks the enforcement of these laws throughout the world It is important to note here that the United Nations only seeks to enforce its laws when they are being broken and the manner in which they are broken is voluntary and malicious The foundations and power

of the United Nations have now come into question with the American position that it has the right to act without the sanction of the Security Council America saw itself enforcing

3 http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/cg/Qegypt-us-iraq.Rt4J_CDR.html

4 http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.09A.kennedy.htm

5 http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/293/yls_article.htm

United Nations Resolutions that already existed However, American inflexibility on these United Nations resolutions discredited Security Council power thus affording the American Government instant autonomy in deciding when to attack The unilateral strike severely discredited the Security Council and the advancements towards peace that it has made, as one of its permanent members was seen disregarding the same international law

it helped established

The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder

They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life… If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order

-United States President George Bush 6

It is clear that America ass in a bind On the one hand, America was bound to protect itself, and it felt that Iraq posed a direct threat to its national security On the other, it was bound by the same international law it helped establish and transport

throughout the world, the international law that has served mankind well for the past two generations and which prohibits unilateral action The reality is that United Nations resolutions were insufficient to satisfy American officials President Bush realized that Iraq’s paltry arms were few Bush believed that Iraq had chemical weapons and was seeking to acquire nuclear ones

By going to war, the United States is in a situation in which it will lose

On the one hand, if Iraq possesses chemical weapons then going to war will force them to use these weapons as they did during the Gulf War, thus leading to casualties However, if no chemical weapons exist then there is proof that the war was unjustified By keeping the inspections going and demanding the full compliance of Iraqi officials, which they’ve begun to show in the past few weeks, we are advancing both of these goals: if chemical weapons are there we should be able to find them and we are preventing nuclear proliferation as inspections prevent Saddam from acquiring such weapons.

-Stanford University Professor Nina Tannenwald on May 20 th , 2003

6 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/27/1046064150688.html

Since the end of major fighting in Iraq, the United States has discovered many things The most important of these is that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, nor did it have the resources to run a nuclear program and furthermore there were no chemical or biological weapons of which to speak This being said, the United States is fortunate that the international community has made very little of the fact that this unjustified, illegal war in Iraq led to the casualties of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians (an exact number remains unknown as American forces did not see it fit to count the number of Iraqis they had killed) Little has been said of the devastation that Iraq suffered

structurally as tanks and fighter jets shelled Iraqi cities and its countryside into a state reminiscent of the Stone Age Yet, as American officials continue to alter the original motive of this war from weapons of mass destruction (which didn’t exist), to removing a ruthless dictator from power (illegal as countries may have whatever government they choose), to bringing democracy to the Middle East (no Middle Eastern country has a democracy and non cherish it) the harsh reality is that the only truly secure pat of the country, more secure than the water and electricity supplies, more secure than even government headquarters in Baghdad are the oil fields that make up much of Northern Iraq

Bush used United Nations resolution 1441 in order to attain his ultimate goal: toppling Saddam Hussein’s government and establishing a truly democratic state This goal, however, is one which cannot legally be done under any circumstance under international law as no country has the power to decide for another country or

government what form of leadership should exist within that country’s borders America used the guise of defending itself from danger, which Bush claims existed from Iraq, in

order to remove Iraq’s authoritarian regime The Security Council was created to ensure that no country has the ability to impose its will upon another, to ensure that only the will

of the world, which seeks to advance peace and human rights, can be imposed upon a country and to ensure that countries could live in relative governmental freedom The Security Council was democratically created by the United States and its allies to ensure that the particular American goal of toppling Hussein’s government should never have been realized, thus proving the Security Council’s and the United Nation’s importance as the situation in Iraq is clearly much worse than it was before American forces “liberated” Iraqis to military rule, unprecedented crime, no viable police force or army, little hospital resources and no international aid other than that of the invaders of this Muslim nation

There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship

-Ralph Nader 7

The United States is greatly altering its role as a proponent of the United Nations The principle of defying international law, if justified for America, can be justified by all countries, including Iraq This would lead to an authoritarian worldview as opposed to the democratic one the United States has historically supported As such, America’s role within the United Nations must be revisited, and America must conform to United

Nations regulations in order to preserve its role as a world leader and prevent isolation from the rest of the world which would lead to the demise of its liberal empire

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

The United States position on the International Criminal Court seems to be somewhat similar to its stance on Iraq Following deplorable human rights violations, ethnic cleansings, and genocide, specifically in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia in the

7 http://www.cyber-nation.com/victory/quotations/authors/quotes_nader_ralph.html

past 15 years, the United Nations was faced with the gruesome reality that the tools with which it was disposed to effectively deal with the grand scale crimes against humanity perpetrated in this century were extremely inadequate to ensure justice In 1998, the Rome Statute, the physical document potentializing8 the existence of a new and

completely international court bound to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression, was voted into existence by countries seeking to make accountable those responsible for these crimes This potential became actuality in July 2002 when it was ratified by 50 states, the number agreed upon

by the representatives of states in Rome, including the United States

This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Stature of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000 The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the

depositary’s status lists relating to this treaty.

-Government of the United States of America on May 6 th , 2002.

However, the new U.S administration chose to revoke its governmental support for the ICC nearing the eve of its becoming international law with the letter above quoted for a myriad of reasons, including its world vision in which the U.S is the major player

“What is at issue here is much greater than the question of dealing with war crimes The implicit dispute is one between three visions of world order following the cold war The Bush administration supports unilateral, global US hegemony, even ‘empire’.”9 The United States must become a party to this court if it wishes to retain its status as world leader in the area of human rights and uphold the preamble of its constitution “Life,

8 Definition of Potentializing http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00185394/00185394se2

9 http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?

_m=481e29bc5a16e4b220e4a7a1a4564c6f&_docnum=11&wchp=dGLbVtb-lSlzV&_md5=c8240d3484d4954cc259672ec85fa0e9

liberty and the pursuit of happiness” throughout the world The ICC is attempting to ensure these ideals to the world and the United States’ opposition to joining this court, despite its contention that it is unable to do so, is a statement to the world that it has little respect for human rights, and even less respect for the international body entrusted to uphold them The United States has the capacity and wherewithal to aid greatly in the assurance of justice and peace in the world and must have as its objective to protect and ensure human rights, not just American ones America has seen the rights of its citizens violated throughout the world; whether it is at nightclubs in Bali, at embassies in Kenya

or in Nairobi, or on its very own soil, with the dramatic attacks of September 11th

Reflecting upon these events, it is clear that America cannot effectively defend itself from all of the world’s threats and must cooperate with international bodies in order expand a world network seeking security throughout the world The international criminal court is the extension of the unions created by the international community to further the aim of world peace by creating consequences for those who commit mankind’s most atrocious acts

Article 27 Irrelevance of official capacity

1 This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or

parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in

no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence

2 Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person 10

10 http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm

Despite this, America is entitled to an opinion on the matter of the International Criminal Court The United Nations was created so that all countries could express their opinions, so that decisions could be made based on international consensus and so that laws of international importance could be implemented on a world scale to attempt to eliminate double-standards

However, the United States is going beyond disagreement in its position It is publicly choosing not to comply with new international law and is requesting the non-compliance of other nations with regards to the United States; a move which has

overwhelmingly been rejected The United States is attempting to undermine the

authority of the Court by asking countries to sign Article 98: stating that if signed they would not hand over United States citizens who have been accused of committing one of the crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction Moreover, countries have been requested by the United States government to hand over suspects of the U.S government believed to have committed a crime under the Court’s jurisdiction to the American government rather than the ICC

American government policy now stands in stark contrast to the values that it upholds and exports throughout the world The United States cannot demand compliance

of United Nations resolutions of other countries if it itself has openly decided to go against international law and has chosen to not respect such an essential part of

international justice as the International Criminal Court Moreover, it has requested that other nations join it in its unlawful position of non-compliance The United States is based on the same principles as the United Nations: democratic ones Within this context, there are moments when policy positions between the United Nations and the United