![]() |
|
resurrectionsongSeptember 23, 2003The UN AddressI'll wait until I read the entire transcript to give my opinion on Bush's speech to the UN, but a few of the statements by Bush and by Chirac really stood out to me. The differences on what role the UN should have played and what acts a sovereign nation can take in the interest of national security couldn't be more different. "In an open world, no one can live in isolation, no one can act alone in the name of all, and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules," Chirac said. "There is no alternative to the United Nations."When the United Nations refuses to act to enforce its own edicts, when the United Nations proves itself a toothless old lion, and when the UN marginalizes itself in international affairs, then the UN is not an option. Yes, there are rules, and the United States acted within those rules: nowhere in international law does it state that a nation cannot declare war on another nation without the express consent of the United Nations. This isn't anarchy, it's a deliberate and considered response to what was considered an ongoing and growing threat. Further, the US did not in any way act in isolation, and it would be best if that "unilateral" lie were to die a natural death. Anything else is an insult to the nations that did offer up their assistance. But where Chirac toils to ensure that the UN remains a useless entity, Bush points the way to a stronger UN.
Yes. This is as much a challenge to all nations of the UN as any other speech he has made. Again, as before, he brings an opportunity to the UN--an opportunity to reclaim relevance and help build something good. What would you bet on the UN doing the right thing? Posted by zombyboy at September 23, 2003 11:38 AM | TrackBackComments
Post a comment
|
| All content ©2003 by the authors of ResurrectionSong.com except where noted. |