============================================= THE NEW DEM DAILY, 12-MAR-03 Political commentary & analysis from the DLC ============================================= [ New Democrats Online: http://www.ndol.org ]
Will the U.N. Rise To the Occasion?
When Congress debated the Iraq "use of force" resolution last fall, it rejected a substitute offered by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) that required U.N. approval of any military action, and instead passed a resolution that sought U.N. approval but preserved the right for the United States to put together a military coalition outside the U.N. framework. We are now seeing the wisdom of the successful resolution.
As much as we join other Democrats in criticizing the diplomatic bungling of the Bush Administration in dealing with past or potential allies before and during the Iraq crisis, we think it's now time for Democrats to focus on the United Nations' responsibility to enforce its own resolutions and authorize action to disarm Saddam Hussein.
The French-led rebellion against enforcement of U.N. resolutions concerning Iraq has taken on a new and more dangerous nature since President Jacques Chirac's admission that there are no circumstances under which France would allow U.N.-sanctioned military action to occur. "Whatever happens, France will vote no," he told reporters in a domestic television interview. Aside from representing a green light to Saddam Hussein to resume his defiant pursuit of weapons of mass destruction amidst the minor inconvenience of inspectors, this posture belies the claim that France, Germany and Russia are trying to defend the United Nations' multilateral prerogatives against U.S. unilateralism. The United States has asked the United Nations to deal with Saddam Hussein after 12 years of unenforced resolutions, and it looks like the United Nations may simply refuse.
There's already a backlash underway in U.S. public opinion against the previously lofty reputation of the United Nations. And if the United Nations begins to reflect the apparent belief of some in Europe that the United States, not Iraq or North Korea, represents the primary threat to world peace and stability, then domestic support for collective security through multilateral organizations will inevitably drop even further.
Democrats were right to push the Bush Administration into going to the United Nations with the irrefutable case against Iraq. Perhaps the Security Council will rise to the occasion and pass a resolution stating the obvious: that Iraq is not complying with its "last chance" resolution 1441. This would be significant, even if the French or Russians use their veto to overturn that decision.
But it's important right now for George W. Bush's American critics to make it abundantly clear that they do not share the idea that he poses a greater challenge to collective security than Saddam Hussein, or that restraining the United States, however misguided its current leaders may sometimes be, is a legitimate mission for the United Nations. It's the United Nations, not the President, that's now in danger of abdicating its responsibilities to the world, to its own resolutions, and to its own charter.