John O'Sullivan makes a very curious argument: some supporters of the UN are really supporters of international anarchy.
It is the United States that, having failed to solve these problems within the approved United Nations structures, now proposes to enforce the international rules on violators through its own leadership and alliances. And that alarms not only the Saddams of the international system but other less obvious groups--notably, both those powers that benefit from international anarchy and those international bodies and nongovernmental organizations that want to replace international anarchy with their own "governance."
The argument has a lot of appeal. The UN is unwilling to see many of its Security Council resolutions enforced. In spite of that, a large assortment of groups support the UN with almost religious zeal. Why is that? Because they do not really want to see rules enforced at an international level. They want anarchy. Some want anarchy because chaos has emotional appeal. Others want it because they see ways to use the conditions of chaos to their own advantage.
Many of the UN's supporters who oppose Security Council approval of action against Iraq are in the position of not wanting the US to enforce Security Council resolutions. This means they really do not mind what Saddam's regime might do or has done. They are not opposed to seeing brutes kill their own people or threaten others. If that is the case then they really do not favor international rules for the purpose of restraining or overthrowing bad regimes.
|Share |||By Randall Parker at 2003 February 23 01:48 AM UN, International Institutions|