Robert M. Liu, click here
to update your web pages on AuthorsDen.
Blogs by Robert M. Liu
The Role of the United Nations 11/28/2003 8:10:06 PM
This short note touches upon the role of the U.N. In the view of the author of this note, we live in a world where money talks, and since the U.N. has no tax revenues and no armed forces, it is unrealistic to expect the U.N. to play a much "bigger role" in Iraq. The Role of the United Nations
The Democrats are talking about giving the United Nations a "bigger role" in Iraq, as if the Bush administration were unwilling to give the U.N. a "bigger role", as if the U.N. were a sovereign country with tax revenues and armed forces to enable it to play a "bigger role".
The fact is the U.N. is a bunch of selfish countries looking after their respective interests. It has no tax revenues. It does not have its own armed forces. As a result, its resolutions are not binding, unless a big power like America intends to enforce them.
Without the United States, the U. N. cannot achieve anything. The only "big role" the U.N. can play is to lend its stamp of international legitimacy to America, when and if America needs it. If the U.N. fails to play this "big role", its usefulness is in question.
French president Chirac wants to play as big a role as possible. But France has so far contributed no resources and no troops to the international community's effort to stabilize the Iraqi situation.
The Democrats' talk about giving the U.N. a "bigger role" sounds as if they live in a dream world where you can play a "bigger role" without having to pay your bills.
Why not come down to Earth and admit that we live in a world of reality where money makes the world go around?
The U.N. has no money. So it cannot call the shots -- period.
The U.N. cannot even protect itself in Iraq. One terrorist car bombing at the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad sent the U.N. running for cover. What kind of a "bigger role" should we expect it to play?
Some time ago, a U.N. resolution was passed encouraging members of the international community to contribute resources and troops to the cause of peace in Iraq.
But as mentioned above, France has refused to contribute anything. Germany may not have much to contribute, either. There is no reason to expect Russia and China to offer much help.
Perhaps, the U.N. has already done its utmost in passing the above-mentioned resultion encouraging contributions to the cause of peace in Iraq. It is up to individual countries to decide how much they can contribute.
Let's check the realities we face. Half of Europe is currently in recession. Africa is a disaster zone with nothing to contribute at all. South America's economies are all struggling.
Canada is not a big military power. Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Japan etc. have already contributed.
Hopefully, more countries will come along and make their contributions to peace in Iraq. But at the end of the day, make no mistake only America can play the real big role in Iraq.
More stamps of international legitimacy from the U.N. are welcome. But stamps of international legitimacy are only stamps. You can't convert stamps into cash when the folks around you prefer not to pay for your stamps.
