United Nations and Reform


Carmen Negrin writes: Humanitarian intervention has been proposed and debated at the UN for quite some time now, in particular pushed by France, advocated by Bernard Kouchner (founder of Médecins sans frontières and UN Representative in ex-Yugoslavia). The Security Council can approve peace keeping interventions such as the ones carried out in ex Yougoslavia and now in Ivory Coast. But protecting a population is different from toppling its Head of State. The UN is there to prevent wars not to justify them, military intervention is the last resort. This is why additional inspections were requested for Iraq. It must be noted that the previous UN inspections were quite successful if one can judge by what was found after the invasion. It should also be noted that the US and UK (whtch always follows) refused to wait for these inspections, because they (at least as far as the Bush administration is concerned) most probably knew they would never find these weapons and thus would not have excuses to put their hands on the oil fields. Let us not rewrite history: the Taliban were always considered a terrorist faction and not an an officially recognized government (it got power thanks to the US and its then friend Ben Laden). Iraq was attacked because of the WMD not because of the crimes against humanity od Saddam Hussein. If this were the case, the next one on the list should most certainly be Sharon (and there is a long list of UN resolutions condemning Israel, without counting the ones the US vetoed). The problem is not reforming the UN, it is having its rules respected by all countries equally.

 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald Hilton
To: hilton@hoover.stanford.edu
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 12:16 AM
Subject: Re:International Law

Nushin Namazi writes: Perhaps it is time to revise and update international law to deal with dictators who refuse to comply with United Nations, refuse to give up their power, and who commit crimes against humanity. We went to war to remove Hitler, We went to War to remove Milosovich in Serbia during Clinton Adminstration, and now we have gone to war to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan and Saadam Hussein from Iraq. Of course, France and the Europeans (except for Britain) were on the take, being bribed by Saadam to support his cause. If the French were objective, they would have voted along with United States tp wage war against Saadam and liberate the Iraqis.  United Nations regulations can be considered myopic today because they could not foresee another evil like Hitler. The fact that the United States had to take the necessary action to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq from terrorists justifies a reassessment of these old and outdated laws to account for those who have a vested interest in corrupt, oppressive, dictators who commit crimes against humanity.


Your comments are invited. Read the home page of the World Association of International Studies (WAIS) by simply double-clicking on:   http://wais.stanford.edu Mail to Ronald Hilton, Hoover Institution, Stanford, CA 94305-6010. Please inform us of any change of e-mail address.

Ronald Hilton 2004

Top

last updated: December 5, 2004