portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts

imperialism & war

Thank God for the death of the UN

Its abject failure gave us only anarchy.

The world needs order
Thank God for the death of the UN

Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order

Richard Perle
Friday March 21, 2003
The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.
As free Iraqis document the quarter-century nightmare of Saddam's rule, let us not forget who held that the moral authority of the international community was enshrined in a plea for more time for inspectors, and who marched against "regime change". In the spirit of postwar reconciliation that diplomats are always eager to engender, we must not reconcile the timid, blighted notion that world order requires us to recoil before rogue states that terrorise their own citizens and menace ours.

A few days ago, Shirley Williams argued on television against a coalition of the willing using force to liberate Iraq. Decent, thoughtful and high-minded, she must surely have been moved into opposition by an argument so convincing that it overpowered the obvious moral case for removing Saddam's regime. For Lady Williams (and many others), the thumb on the scale of judgment about this war is the idea that only the UN security council can legitimise the use of force. It matters not if troops are used only to enforce the UN's own demands. A willing coalition of liberal democracies isn't good enough. If any institution or coalition other than the UN security council uses force, even as a last resort, "anarchy", rather than international law, would prevail, destroying any hope for world order.

This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France. When challenged with the argument that if a policy is right with the approbation of the security council, how can it be wrong just because communist China or Russia or France or a gaggle of minor dictatorships withhold their assent, she fell back on the primacy of "order" versus "anarchy".

But is the security council capable of ensuring order and saving us from anarchy? History suggests not. The UN arose from the ashes of a war that the League of Nations was unable to avert. It was simply not up to confronting Italy in Abyssinia, much less - had it survived that debacle - to taking on Nazi Germany.

In the heady aftermath of the allied victory, the hope that security could be made collective was embodied in the UN security council - with abject results. During the cold war the security council was hopelessly paralysed. The Soviet empire was wrestled to the ground, and eastern Europe liberated, not by the UN, but by the mother of all coalitions, Nato. Apart from minor skirmishes and sporadic peacekeeping missions, the only case of the security council acting during the cold war was its use of force to halt the invasion of South Korea - and that was only possible because the Soviets were not in the chamber to veto it. It was a mistake they did not make again.

Facing Milosevic's multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the Balkan wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the willing to save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace was made in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo was not a UN action: their cause never gained security council approval. The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved the Falklands.

This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways. We will not defeat or even contain fanatical terror unless we can carry the war to the territories from which it is launched. This will sometimes require that we use force against states that harbour terrorists, as we did in destroying the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The most dangerous of these states are those that also possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one, but there are others. Whatever hope there is that they can be persuaded to withdraw support or sanctuary from terrorists rests on the certainty and effectiveness with which they are confronted. The chronic failure of the security council to enforce its own resolutions is unmistakable: it is simply not up to the task. We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognise that they are, by default, the best hope for that order, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the UN.

Richard Perle is chairman of the defence policy board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon.

This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in this week's Spectator.

homepage: homepage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,918812,00.html
address: address: Guardian UK


M. Foucault

The above I presume is a quote from Orwell's dated novel.

U.N. is all that stands between the world and the Fourth Reich.

Perle is a well know ass kisser of corporate money.

I Choose Anarchy... 21.Mar.2003 17:51


I would prefer to live in anarchy than in Perle's vision of the future.

Idiot cubed 21.Mar.2003 19:11


Perle is an asswipe, and I hope he reads this. The effectiveness of the UN has been undermined by the two biggest thugs on the planet, the US and Israel, who veto anything worthwhile. The US is currently in violation of number of crimes having to do with this war and could give a shit. People like Perle condone such treachery and are guilty as conspirators.

Pussyfooting around the facts 21.Mar.2003 20:06

David B.

Note that Perle isn't even attempting to explain how this doctrine of "preventative war" proclaimed by a the most powerful nation on earth against an incredibly weakened one half a world a way isn't going to make conflict much more likely between pairs of nations that share a common border and a real history of strife. Like, say, nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Note that there's no explanation as to how this attack, plus the total intransigence of the USA when it comes to arms-control issues, is NOT going to greatly intensify nuclear proliferation. Nations will willingly opt to be vassals of US hegemony instead of having nukes and a measure of soverignty, just to be nice to the USA. Yeah, right.

There's no explanations because Pearle has none. He can't make one. None exist.

Portland, OR