Staying Inside the Tent: In the Run-Up to the Invasion of Iraq Members of the US Administration Made Various Disparaging Remarks about the United Nations, Some Went as Far as to Predict the Organisation's Demise. but as Ian Williams, Author of the UN for Beginners Observes, the Relationship between the Two Has Frequently Been a Rocky One

By Williams, Ian | The Middle East, February 2004 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Staying Inside the Tent: In the Run-Up to the Invasion of Iraq Members of the US Administration Made Various Disparaging Remarks about the United Nations, Some Went as Far as to Predict the Organisation's Demise. but as Ian Williams, Author of the UN for Beginners Observes, the Relationship between the Two Has Frequently Been a Rocky One


Williams, Ian, The Middle East


Across the political spectrum in the United States, the United Nations excites strong feelings, but these are usually based on preconceptions and misconceptions rather than on an objective look at the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation. No rational person who has observed the UN at work could ever suspect that it had either the ambition or the ability to dominate the US, let alone rule the world. But that does not stop American conservatives from insisting that it is trying to do the former. Nor does it stop liberals from complaining that it is not successfully doing the latter.

Some on the left denounced the Americans and British for attacking Iraq without a UN mandate, but many of those same people would have been as quick to denounce the organisation as a cover for US imperialism if it had actually voted to support the attack (as it did and they did during the 1992 Gulf War). It is perhaps typical that when representatives of the Iraqi Governing Council addressed the UN Security Council on 21 July, members of "Iraq Occupation Watch" disrupted proceedings from the public gallery, accusing the UN of "collusion" with the US.

At the other extreme, when the White House decided to give up on gaining Security Council support for an Iraqi invasion, the usual suspects hit the opinion and editorial pages heralding the end of the organisation. Certainly the epitaph from Richard Perle was somewhat premature. He announced in March that when Saddam Hussein went, he would "take the UN down with him."

It is a typically solipsistic American world view that measures the UN's value by its usefulness to US foreign policy. UN resolutions are something the US preaches about and enforces upon others (because they are often useful), but is not bound by itself (whenever they are not useful). There is one use both political parties have agreed on: The organisation is a useful scapegoat for American policy setbacks.

Still, most people on the centre and left consider the UN and the growing body of international law to be, overall, a good thing. We think that war should only be a last resort, and that the international community acting in concert is vastly preferable to lawless military action. Indeed, some go further and regard even the last resort as unjustifiable: The UN is a peacekeeping organisation. But that is a falsely, idealistic conception of the U N. It is indeed, as some pacifists say, dedicated to peace, but it was set up to fight for peace if necessary. Similarly, some see the organisation's main purpose as resisting the US. This may be an occasional role thrust upon it by member states; it is no more the organisation's purpose than enforcing American wishes.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has struggled, in tandem with US Secretary of State Colin Powell, to keep links open between the White House and the rest of the world, the UN and international institutions. It often looks like pandering, and in some measure it is. But placating a restless giant is a more sensible strategy than grandstanding. And, at least sometimes, the UN can be an impediment to unmitigated American supremacy. That is not to say that the US does not use the organisation for its own ends: It has done so repeatedly and successfully. However its use, and even its abuse, comes with conditions, which are not always welcome. Most member states agree with the American neo-conservatives that one of the functions of the UN is to give the Lilliputians strings to restrain the global Gulliver. They think it is essential to keep the US involved and entangled in the organisation, even if it does occasionally birch up and break the strings.

The State Department, and others in the Bush administration, certainly feel the need for external validation, as proven by their extraordinary efforts to mount a "coalition" for the Iraq War: The effect was intended to counter the lack of a UN mandate.

Most governments would agree it is preferable to have the UN with you, rather than against you.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Staying Inside the Tent: In the Run-Up to the Invasion of Iraq Members of the US Administration Made Various Disparaging Remarks about the United Nations, Some Went as Far as to Predict the Organisation's Demise. but as Ian Williams, Author of the UN for Beginners Observes, the Relationship between the Two Has Frequently Been a Rocky One
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?