|
Do you need to buy a birthday, anniversary or holiday gift? Visit the Galleria!  Add your
comments on this week's "What
is the Deal?" column at Uncle Hiram's Bulletin Board.March 16, 2003 What is the deal with the United Nations? By Jan A. Larson It seems that we are rapidly approaching the point (if it has not already been reached) at which the United Nations ceases to have any relevance in world affairs. The reign of terror by Saddam Hussein has not been dealt with by the United Nations except via the issuance of multiple resolutions demanding his compliance. To date, he has not complied with any of the UN resolutions but yet there is this notion floating around that if just one more UN resolution could be passed, the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the free world would be solved. This is simply preposterous. Hans Blix and his merry band of inspectors are merely pawns in an elaborate and dangerous game being played out in the arena of the UN Security Council. Blix, for some inexplicable reason, seems to be the only person that has any credibility with Security Council. His inspectors, who are not investigators and are not charged with rooting out hidden weapons, have thus far failed to uncover the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that are known to have been in possession of Saddam Hussein but remain unaccounted for. It seems that many around the world accept that he must not have them or are content to wait for an undetermined amount of time for inspectors to find them. Does it seem logical that since the inspectors haven't found them that they don't exist or does it make more sense that since inspections haven't found them, that Saddam has hidden them away so they won't be found? The United States, unfortunately, has been going along with the charade that is the United Nations. The US along with Great Britain have been floating the idea of yet another UN resolution, one that France has already indicated it will veto. Why go through the exercise? Will life in the US or the role of the United Nations be somehow changed whether or not Guinea and Cameroon vote for the to-be-vetoed resolution? President Bush has already stated that the risk of inaction is greater than the risk of action in Iraq. How does acting alone following a vetoed resolution versus acting alone without another resolution at all mitigate these risks? Does it make any sense whatsoever for the security of the United States to be at the mercy of the political whims of nations such as Guinea and Cameroon? It is time to get on with it and remove Saddam once and for all. It is time to end this seemingly endless posturing by France and others seeking to keep their oil deals with Iraq in place. Further delay by France, Germany, Russia or anyone else that has an ulterior motive for obstructing the removal of Saddam Hussein does not serve the best interests of the United States and it is time that we realize that the United Nations does not and will not serve the best interests of the United States. The total ineffectiveness of the United Nations plus the self-serving actions of an increasingly irrelevant nation, France, has rendered the UN meaningless. There is some prime real estate in New York that could be put to better use. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
|
