Cambridge Decries Bush's Avoidance of U.N. Procedures

Author: Daryn Cambridge

Many people admire President George W. Bush for going to the United Nations and seeking international support for a potential war against Iraq.
At first, I also admired such an effort, until I realized he would have been in breach of the U.N. Charter had he proceeded to attack Iraq without first making his case to the United Nations.
As far as the Charter goes: no country -- in this case the United States -- can decide to unilaterally attack and force a regime change in another country -- in this case Iraq -- unless certain conditions apply.
Unless the United States is attacked by Iraq and is acting in self-defense, or if the United Nations sees Iraq as a threat to international peace and security, the United States cannot legitimately use military force in Iraq.
This criterion was satisfied when Iraq slipped into the American conscious of fear in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Some may argue that Saddam Hussein and Iraq may have been supplying terrorist organizations with weapons of mass destruction, although this has yet to be proven.
Article 39 of the U.N. Charter states, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken ... to maintain or restore international peace and security" (www.un.org).
This caveat has proven to be insufficient for the Bush administration, for they constantly release speculative evidence that is used to make inspections look like a frivolous attempt at disarmament.
I will, however, trust the intelligence and information from the U.N. Chief Weapon Inspector Hans Blix and the International Atomic Energy Association's (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei -- those who have actually been on the ground in Iraq and doing the actual inspecting -- before I trust President Bush, who has not even set foot in Iraq.
Hans Blix, in his report to the United Nations on Friday said, "In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by United Nations Special Commissions (UNSCOM) in the period 1991 to 1998" (www.un.org).
In addition, International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohamed El Baradei said, "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq" (www.iaea.org).
Those in charge of the inspections do not see Iraq as an imminent threat to peace.
Finally, one of the Bush administration's most popular arguments is that the United Nations will lose its integrity and international legitimacy if they are not willing to enforce the resolutions that they themselves have passed. This is an interesting and poignant argument until you realize the United States -- in disregarding the opinions and votes of the Security Council and waging war against Iraq without sufficient international support -- are themselves discrediting and stripping integrity from the United Nations. President Bush has made it clear that they are going to invade Iraq even if the new resolution is not passed by the United Nations.
This is a complete disregard for the world's sole international governing body and in, yet again, breach of Article Two of the U.N. Charter, which reads, "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations" (www.un.org).
I will not praise Bush for doing what a world leader and permanent member of the United Nations is supposed to do. Acting otherwise would have been a direct violation of the basic principles of the United Nations, which was formed to create international cooperation in maintaining peace and security in the world.
It seems as though he may choose this path anyway, and in doing so create an image of America as an arrogant state that has little or no concern for the opinions of other countries -- an image that will increase the hatred directed at the United States and is antithetical to the promotion of peace, diplomacy and global cooperation.

Daryn Cambridge is a senior English/Philosophy joint major from Arlington, Va.