Club UN

Because it is apparent that America is prepared to go to war with or without a second UN resolution authorising this, it has been said that unless the UN passes a second resolution, it will show that it has become irrelevant in international affairs.

Now this is not rocket science, but it seems to me that now this has been said, the opposite is true.

If in response to America’s moving towards war the UN had simply said, “OK, fine, Iraq has breached the first resolution, of course war is now the only option, we agree with America”, then we have no definite evidence either way as to whether the UN is still in charge. Therefore, the UN remains potentially relevant. However, if the UN now passes a resolution authorising war after America has indicated its contempt for the UN, to try to give the impression that the UN still has a role in this, the UN instead shows itself to be truly irrelevant.

It reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons where Bart is at dog–training school with Santa’s Little Helper. All the other owners are saying “stay” and the dog stays. Santa’s Little Helper is running around doing exactly what it wants and Bart is calling instructions after the event in a futile attempt to convince the trainer who is running the class that he is calling the shots — “Sit! Um, take a walk! Sniff that other dog’s butt”!

The UN still has a role in showing the will of the international community, even if it is not omnipotent. During the Cold War, did anyone really think it was anyway? The nuclear powers have always had the option to do what they want in defiance of the UN — there is no absolute authority in international law (not even America). However, when defiance by a big player occurs, the only real sanction — international censure — is still worth something. The UN has only become truly pointless if it starts rubber–stamping the decisions of the powerful to avoid appearing irrelevant.