No Longer Necessary
Why The UN is a Failure
Chapter One: Iraq
Iraq before the US involvement was a caricature of what the UN was created to stand against. There is no other way to describe the previous government of Iraq before US involvement. There have been few controversial issues in modern politics that have rocked the world as hard as the issue of Iraq.
The UN's own website (Human's Rights Watch) cites many human rights abuses that occurred under Saddam's rule. They include a page that says Saddam ordered helicopters to shoot unarmed Kurds who were attempting to escape Iraq. So obviously, the UN is not, and was not oblivious to the crimes Saddam committed against his people. The UN has very intensive documentation on their website concerning the Anful Campaign. Their definition of that event, not mine, of that horror was "genocide". I'd have to agree. The death toll quoted by the UN site was "--50,000 by the most conservative estimate, and possibly twice that number".
Remembering all the events of World War Two, one would recall one of the reasons the UN was founded was to prevent and convict those who commit crimes against humanity. Did the UN participate in removing Saddam from power? No. To be more technical, the UN left Iraq in 1998. The UN left due to the US plans to bomb suspected nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon plants. After the raid was over, the UN did not return to Iraq. The UN only returned to Iraq after the US attack against Saddam's government. Instead of the UN assisting the US on grounds of crimes against humanity, something the UN itself claimed was occurring in Iraq, it vouched to not act. The UN fully supported the idea that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, even though it had not had teams visit Iraq in four years. The UN has slowly drifted of its sole purpose to prevent world wars, and convict those responsible for crimes against humanity.
The UN firmly retains the belief that there was no reason to assist the US, or any of the other members in the "coalition of the willing". It has not expressed remorse, or regret for this decision. Technically, the UN believes the 2002 Iraq War to be illegal. Why? The issue of Iraq NEVER made it to the Security Council, which is the reason that idea is so explosive for American conservatives. A major event that helped define modern politics NEVER made it to the Security Council. That largely ignored important fact is not only unbelievable, but can inspire a lot of questions. I believe it is foolish and misleading to call a war "illegal" on the basis of the UN's own shortcomings. The US should not be held accountable for the UN's failure to bring an issue to the Security Council.
The UN should have dragged Saddam from power long ago, despite any cries from other countries. This should have been done, despite the US choosing to side with Iraq in the Iran Iraq War. Both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons, contrary to the Geneva Convention signed after WWI. The difference is Iraq used these nerve agents against not only a foe, but its own citizens. That should be grounds alone for Saddam being removed from power. The second chance the UN had to remove Saddam from power was the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq invaded another country, Kuwait. The UN, and the United States both let a golden opportunity slip away to free the Iraqis from Saddam. Instead of the UN mustering the strength and courage to remove Saddam, and properly convict Saddam in a court of law, they chose to do nothing. Had they acted, they would be able to convict Saddam in a world court.
Possibly regretting their failure to act, the UN is now writing extensive documents criticizing the Iraqi trial against Saddam. When another country stepped in to remove a hostile dictator who possibly had nuclear weapons, one would normally assume a peace organization to side against a hostile dictator. This was not the case. Instead of the UN applauding, they rushed to the aid of the Iraqi dictator. Several countries were responsible for barring the topic of Iraq out of the Security Council. The most scandalous answer for the behavior of these countries was Oil for Food Scandal. Though, officially, the program did feed hungry Iraqis it is also true that the UN also gained millions of dollars worth of money. (Ironically, the UN was directly responsible for the Iraqis being hungry due to numerous sanctions imposed against Iraq. The situation becomes worse when you note that a peace organization was willing to enforce sanctions that would cause people to starve, but the same organization failed to enforce sanctions that would grant freedom to Iraqis)
So… it is becoming clear why some people in the US are demanding the American withdrawal from the UN.
The UN failed to perform one of the sole reasons for its creation: the removal and conviction of those who commit crimes against humanity.
Continued appeasement: By knowledgeably allowing Saddam to continue his practices of genocide, the UN practiced appeasement. Fiery American conservatives would be able to forgive the UN if the organization had been unaware of the genocide occurring within the country. However, the UN was fully aware of what had been going on. Aside from prior knowledge of chemical weapons use against his people in the Iran Iraq War, the UN wrote an extensive document (published in 1993) displayed on its webpage of the crimes committed by Saddam titled, "Genocide in Iraq". The document includes graphic eyewitness testimony of the firing squads, mass graves, and what happened to those who participated in the 1991 uprising against Saddam's government.
History reminds us appeasement was a joke, a complete lapse in judgment, and a definite failed policy. Without learning from history we are doomed to repeat our past mistakes.
Bureaucracy is interfering with what is morally right: A major event which defined modern politics, and helped shaped the character of the remaining world superpower was absent from the Security Council. A seemingly simple question arises, "Should the UN go to war with an oppressive, murdering dictator (as stated by the Human Rights Watch, which is a UN organization) to help instill peace?" The answer to that question should always be yes. When the UN answers no to that question, the UN ceases to be a peace organization, and becomes a bureaucracy. If a peace organization ceases to do what is morally right, what is the point of a peace organization's existence?
Failure to acknowledge wrongs: The leader of the UN, instead of apologizing for the shortcomings of his own organization, (mainly lack of Iraq to reach the Security Council, Oil for Food Program, etc.) makes a fool out himself by calling the American attack against Saddam "illegal".
Conflict of Interest: The US was absent from the League of Nations for one main reason. It was generally believed for the US involvement to be a conflict of interest. That still rings true today, but for different reasons. After WWI, the US adopted a platform of isolationism. US involvement with the League of Nations would conflict with past US traditions of neutrality. Today however, US involvement in the UN is a conflict of interest because the UN does not see issues eye to eye with the United States. If the UN does not cease to be bureaucracy, the US must once again do what we were called to do during the Cold War; help regulate world affairs.
The very least the UN could do is assist in convicting Saddam to help soothe recent tempers slowly settling in the US. After all, if the UN continues to fail in removing abusing dictators from power, it is only continuing practices of appeasement. As the League of Nations continued hopelessly in its reoccurring choices of practicing appeasement, the League consequently foreshadowed its own doom. The UN is following in its grandparents footsteps. If the UN does not dramatically change its ways, it will become a branch of forgotten history.
Just a few other countries thoughly documented by the UN. In the end, the result of the UN's accomplishments has amounted to nothing. These countries outline, and reveal the UN's continuing international policy of appeasement.