Nice idea, shame about reality

This was written more in hope than expectation, though my annoyance with leftist Anti-Americanism remains as strong as it was then.



If I were a true, died in the wool, moaning leftie (as the Sun is calling anybody who raises a single question about the wisdom of war against Iraq), I would doubtless be a very disappointed man this week. After all, I've spent a few weeks now getting myself riled and annoyed (not to mention deeply, breathtakingly paranoid) at Dubya and his All Star Clown Show (otherwise known as the US Government). I've scribbled down dire warnings of the dangers of American unilateralism and perceived anti-Islamic policies, to much the same effect as the bloke at Newcastle Monument who keeps telling strangers that Jesus loves them. And then, just as all was starting to seem as hopeless as Ronald Reagan at a pub quiz, something rather nice happened.

Dubya made a speech to the UN on Friday. For once, the most interesting thing about it wasn't his tortured syntax and mangled vocabulary (from what I could gather, he seems to think that "Elsewhere" is actually a country...). Having read the speech, it would appear that the US Government have finally realised that perhaps pissing off every other nation on the face of the planet is a bad idea. In essence, Dubya said that the US would consult the UN over Iraq, but the UN had to stop shirking it's responsibilities or else face being marginalised in the same way as the League of Nations was just before WWII. In an admittedly token gesture, he also signed the US back up to UNESCO (a UN project by which signatory nations share educational, cultural, and scientific information). Thus, the US addressed the accusation that it would act unilaterally and ride roughshod over the objections of others. The first main objection to war with Iraq had an answer.

Then he went a stage further. He stated that America was committed to a self governed, independent state for the Palestinians. Suddenly, the second main objection to war, that the US are being discriminatory against Moslems in this, thus far, farcical and inconclusive war against terror, was addressed too. Of course, saying that one is in agreement with an idea is entirely different to actually taking steps to put that idea into practice. Nevertheless, this showed that Dubya (or at least, his speechwriters and his government. Let's be honest here; Dubya is a man who takes stupidity to epic levels. For ease of reference, when I mention the monkey, I'm in fact talking about the organ grinders) has at least paid attention to why there is such opposition to his war. Moreover, it showed that there was the political savvy to try and do something about it rather than fixing objectors with a blank stare and accuse them of being on a par with Saddam himself in terms of evil.

This unexpected but welcome outburst of common sense got me to thinking; why, if one takes the leap of faith that Dubya actually means what he says, should there be any more objections to war with Iraq? After all, the UN does indeed have obligations to the international community to enforce the resolutions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War (of course, it also has obligations to enforce the 2 resolutions ordering Israel to leave the Palestinians alone, but lets push that gently to one side for now). Why on earth shouldn't America demand that UN do what it was set up to do and bring a rogue state in line? If nothing else, it clears the way for any nation who is genuinely interested in justice to make the same demands concerning Israel.

And that of course is the key phrase; "genuinely interested in justice". I don't think that a single member state of the UN meets this criterion. All they are interested in is naked self-interest. For all that Dubya assuaged my two big fears about a war with Iraq on Friday, I'm not so naive as to think that he wants the war for any other reason than greater access to oil reserves. And yet we seem to insist that America acts according to a higher moral standard than we are willing to impose on other nations. In fairness, America brings a lot of that on itself with its absurd "Land of the Free" rhetoric, yet we are far more willing to point out America's self interest when they actually act on the world stage.

For example, when the UK sent troops to Sierra Leone, we were generally praised in the international community for helping to defend a legitimate government from wild and savage rebel soldiers. Do you suppose that the diamond mines that we were fighting to defend were an insignificant detail? Of course not; they were the entire reason that we were there. However, the Sierra Leone government did not fall. The rebels were beaten back. The reasons for our intervention were less than pure (unless you count pure greed) but the results were definitely desirable. And as we observed the niceties of international law (or at least, made reference to them), there were no objections in the UN.

Could the same not be said here of America? Again, I must stress that if the UN speech was a blip and the US does indeed plough on with it's unilateral action then all bets are off. But just look at the difference that those words have made; America is trying to keep up the appearance of consulting with the international community. Dubya has backed the UN into a corner by pointing out that the US would be enforcing existing UN resolutions, and that all nations have a duty to support UN approved actions. Though the war would be about oil, the result would be the end of one of the most despotic regimes on earth.

It seems that the US is doomed in its efforts to assuage the left wing in this matter. No matter what they do, there will always be the calls and reminders that the US, like every other nation on the planet, has and continues to behave in it's own interests first. Naturally, I wish that this were different, but does anyone really think that never-ending vilification is going to do the trick? The right wing was belligerent until Friday, happy to stick two fingers up to the rest of the world due to their conviction that they were pursuing the correct course of action by divine right. Though their bluster and bullshit will no doubt continue, and though they will almost certainly deride the UN as no more than a talking shop, it will rankle them no end that the path to war has been smoothed by diplomacy and not by threats of force.

With time, and with all nations being forced into the position of having to consult with the UN should they wish to preserve their pretence of legitimacy and selflessness, we may hopefully find that the world will actually consist of countries with legitimate and genuinely selfless governments. It is, after all, a round world and we're all the same race of people when all is said and done. Until then, the demand of the left for all nations (especially America) to act like paragons of virtue without any coercion or anything in it for them is unrealistic. We demanded the US consult the UN. They have done so. The left cannot simply go on criticising because it doesn't like what the UN does in response. That is no better than the whining of the right who get upset at the UN for not letting them use their nice new bombs. The way is now clear for genuine debate about what should be done with Iraq, and I'd hate to see it derailed by the left because they don't want Dubya to get what he wants. The US may have questionable motives, but after the Friday's speech, there are many who say that the benefits of a war now outweigh the problems it would cause. It's time for the left to address that point and stop miring itself in a list of complaints that can be easily twisted to be made to look like nothing more than rabid anti Americanism. Here's hoping that they rise to the challenge.