Think Again

Think Again - Think Again: The United Nations By Madeleine...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Think Again: The United Nations By Madeleine K. Albright Page 1 of 3 September/October 2003 Bureaucratic. Ineffective. Undemocratic. Anti-United States. And after the bitter debate over the  use of force in Iraq, critics might add  seless?to the list of adjectives describing the United  Nations. So why was the United Nations the first place the Bush administration went for approval  after winning the war? Because for $1.25 billion a year oughly what the Pentagon spends every  32 hours he United Nations is still the best investment that the world can make in stopping  AIDS and SARS, feeding the poor, helping refugees, and fighting global crime and the spread of  nuclear weapons. "The United Nations Has Become Irrelevant"  No.  The second Gulf War battered the U.N. Security Council's already shaky prestige. Hawks  condemned the council for failing to bless the war; opponents for failing to block it. Nevertheless, when  major combat stopped, the United States and Great Britain rushed to seek council authorization for their  joint occupation of Iraq, the lifting of sanctions, and the right to market Iraqi oil.  What lessons will emerge from the wrangle over Iraq? Will France, Russia, and China grudgingly  concede U.S. dominance and cooperate sufficiently to keep the United States from routinely bypassing  the Security Council? Or might they form an opposition bloc that paralyzes the body? Will the United  States and United Kingdom proceed triumphantly? Or will they suffer so many headaches in Iraq that  they conclude, in hindsight, that initiating the war without council support was a mistake?  Both sides have reason to move toward cooperation. The French, Russians, and Chinese all derive  outsized influence from their status as permanent Security Council members; they see the panel as a  means to mitigate U.S. hegemony and do not want the White House to pronounce it dead. And despite  their unilateralist tendencies, Bush administration officials will welcome council support when battling  terrorists and rogue states in the future. Although the council is not and never has been the preeminent  arbiter of war and peace that its supporters wish it were, it remains the most widely accepted source of  international legitimacy—and legitimacy still has meaning, even for empires. That is why U.S. President  George W. Bush and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell both made their major prewar, pro-war  presentations before a U.N. audience.  Beyond the council itself, the United Nations' ongoing relevance is evident in the work of the more than  two dozen organizations comprising the U.N. system. In 2003 alone, the International Atomic Energy 
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/06/2012 for the course POLI 202 taught by Professor Bee-yatch during the Spring '11 term at Arizona.

Page1 / 6

Think Again - Think Again: The United Nations By Madeleine...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online