Muhammad Tauseef A. Bajwa
Senator (1k+ posts)
Five myths about the United Nations
By: David Bosco | Published: March 29, 2011
More than a week ago, a decisive meeting at the UN Security Council set in motion an armed intervention in Libya. In its wake, the UN secretary general has called on all members to support international action there. But how much does the global bodys stamp of approval matter? Having helped launch military strikes against the forces of Libyan leader Gaddafi, is the United Nations capable of finding a way out of the crisis?
1. A UN resolution makes war legitimate
Legality and legitimacy is not the same thing. A UN Security Council resolution, such as the one passed March 17 that authorized the international community to protect civilians and establish a no-fly zone in Libya, makes a war legal but it does not necessarily make it legitimate.
Many observers believe that the Security Council, with its antiquated, World War II-era membership, great-power veto rights and backroom negotiations, is itself illegitimate. Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany which represent more than 40 percent of the worlds population abstained on the Libya resolution, raising further doubts about the depth of international support for the mission.
Moreover, the Security Council has authorized plenty of missions that quickly lost whatever luster they had when first conceived. In the 1990s, for example, UN-backed interventions in Bosnia and Somalia both designed to address grave humanitarian crises failed spectacularly. When the American and international public considers the validity of a new UN-sponsored initiative, the councils spotty record does it no favors.
2. Bush admin hated UN, but Obama is not exactly. Yes, the Bush administrations decision to wage war in Iraq without a thumbs-up from the Security Council won it an enduring reputation for antipathy to the organization, and yes, John Bolton, who served as President George W. Bushs UN ambassador from 2005 to 2006, once declared: Theres no such thing as the United Nations.
By: David Bosco | Published: March 29, 2011
More than a week ago, a decisive meeting at the UN Security Council set in motion an armed intervention in Libya. In its wake, the UN secretary general has called on all members to support international action there. But how much does the global bodys stamp of approval matter? Having helped launch military strikes against the forces of Libyan leader Gaddafi, is the United Nations capable of finding a way out of the crisis?
1. A UN resolution makes war legitimate
Legality and legitimacy is not the same thing. A UN Security Council resolution, such as the one passed March 17 that authorized the international community to protect civilians and establish a no-fly zone in Libya, makes a war legal but it does not necessarily make it legitimate.
Many observers believe that the Security Council, with its antiquated, World War II-era membership, great-power veto rights and backroom negotiations, is itself illegitimate. Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany which represent more than 40 percent of the worlds population abstained on the Libya resolution, raising further doubts about the depth of international support for the mission.
Moreover, the Security Council has authorized plenty of missions that quickly lost whatever luster they had when first conceived. In the 1990s, for example, UN-backed interventions in Bosnia and Somalia both designed to address grave humanitarian crises failed spectacularly. When the American and international public considers the validity of a new UN-sponsored initiative, the councils spotty record does it no favors.
2. Bush admin hated UN, but Obama is not exactly. Yes, the Bush administrations decision to wage war in Iraq without a thumbs-up from the Security Council won it an enduring reputation for antipathy to the organization, and yes, John Bolton, who served as President George W. Bushs UN ambassador from 2005 to 2006, once declared: Theres no such thing as the United Nations.
