un-relevant, a more sober analysis

By Todd Stadler · Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:10am

So our comandeer-in chief has decided that the UN could become irrelevant.

And, according to the Washington Post, Bush has already decided to go to war, no matter what.

Oh wait, Ari Fleischer said that "there remains a possibility for peace ... if Saddam Hussein disarms".

Oh, never mind, I just remembered that Bush told Saddam, "the game is over."

Anyhow, I'll grant that the UN's future may, in fact, be at stake, but maybe not as Bush would have it.

Bush wants me (and you too, buddy) to think that if the Security Council doesn't enforce Resolution 1441, then the UN is meaningless.

Gee, and the Republicans had always loved the UN prior to this.

I'll grant that the nations that unanimously passed 1441 weren't probably thinking everything through when they finagled its wording.

While the resolution doesn't explicitly call for force to be used, it's hard to imagine what they thought the United States would interpret "serious consequences" to mean. No more sweet free trade deals?

That said, it still doesn't explicitly call for force to be used, and as such, a lack of military action technically doesn't even violate the wording of the resolution.

Or so says li'l ol' me sitting here in my non-international-law office.

Regardless, there are many ways that this situation could be dealt with that don't involve "shocking and awing" the crap out of a populace.

But the Bush administration hasn't bothered thinking of any, so it's their way or the fairway. I mean highway.

Which is, of course, the kind of attitude that indicates that Bush already thinks the UN is irrelevant.

After all, if he's going to act the same way, regardless of how the other countries vote, then the UN isn't making much of a difference, is it?

But then, the UN's danged if it does and danged if it doesn't.

Because any organization that lets itself be bullied around by a powerful, but singular, entity like the United States isn't terribly relevant to begin with.

Of course, I don't believe that merely having the council agree with Bush makes it a rubber stamp, but that's the flip side to the game Bush is playing.

Either the council is irrelevant because of how its votes align with the United States, or it isn't, right?

It'd be one thing if many other countries seemed to be pushing for war without presssure from the U.S.

Or if what support there is weren't tainted by apparent offers of agreements or aid.

Oh, it's all so hazy. The only thing I'm really sure of is that this entry will soon be irrelevant. Soon like now.