The US Must Not Put Pressure On the UN

Home>>Opinion

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Tuesday, March 18, 2003

The US Must Not Put Pressure On the UN

Recently it will see the UN Security Council to vote on the new resolution put forward by the US, UK and Spain on Iraq. As predicted by the political and academic circles in the US, if the US new resolution on Iraq won't get the UN support, the UN will be confronted with a danger of being "cast aside".

DISCUSSION

CHINESE

SEND TO FRIEND

Recently it will see the UN Security Council to vote on the new resolution put forward by the US, UK and Spain on Iraq. In view of the present situation with regard to the respective attitude towards the new resolution there is minute possibility for it to be passed. Because even if the US finally gets nine votes for its support it will come to a premature end due to the veto exercised by France and Russia. As predicted by the political and academic circles in the US, if the US new resolution on Iraq won't get the UN support, the UN will be confronted with a danger of being "cast aside". The White House spokesman even said, if the UN Security Council wouldn't take any action, whichever is injured is not the United States but the United Nations for people will call in question with regard to the legalization and representation of the UN.

Under the background that the US has determined to topple the Saddam regime what a role the UN should play? If the UN Security Council pass the new resolution this is to indicate that the UN has been exploited and coerced by the US. To throw by the UN a legalized cloak on the US military action against Iraq means an utter violation of the UN aim in the maintenance of world peace and security. However, if the UN Security Council is opposed to authorizing the US attack on Iraq it will not only be faced with a plight in which the UN is unable to check the outbreak of the war but also the danger of being cast aside by the US. The UN is landed in a dilemma between fire and water.

We should say, at the time when the leaders of the US, the former USSR and the UK put their heads together brewing over the establishment of the UN by the end of World War II, one of the important role of the UN was to maintain the world peace and security.

At that time, The three countries advocated that big countries should take up the major responsibility for maintaining the world peace and security. This is first because only big countries would have the ability to launch a war on a large scale, and second because only big countries were able to check and stop the war. Hence the forming of the UN Security Council.

However, for the big countries to maintain world peace and security the crucial matter lies in that they must be strict on their own behavior and work in a coordinated way. If the big countries cannot abide by the decree the Security Council is confronted with the two choices: either the big country going to act willfully or forced to make an alteration of what it is pursuing for, one or the other. If the former case happens that means the loss of authority for the UN Security Council but to make appear the latter there must be a mutually restricted balance among the big countries. This is the major reason that most of the countries wish for in a speedy development towards multi-polarization of the world.

However, in the present world the UK goes along with the US. Neither Russia, France nor China is able to pit against the US. Perhaps the joint efforts of the three are able to but it's hard to achieve it in reality as each of the three countries is different in national strength, predicament and national conditions as well as their relations with the US. The US, as a sole superpower in the world finds no match for it in any part of the world so far as its political influence, economic capability and military power are concerned. Judging from the present situation, it's not sure for the UN Security Council to stop the advance of the US war-chariot even if the new resolution is vetoed owing to the exercise of the veto by France and Russia. The core of the international politics is to strive for power and benefits for which the actual strength is the foundation and prerequisite. If a country does whatever it likes in a wilful way under the condition that the UN Security Council vetoed it the role of the UN Security Council is seriously challenged.

The US has done quite a lot for the UN, some being good while others were ignominious; some being positive contributions while others were troubles brought about for it. No matter whether it's good or bad the US traces can be tracked in the development of the UN up to now. People are of concern that how big a role the UN can play either in the maintenance of the world peace or in the field of promoting the world development if without the participation of the US. Nevertheless this should not serve as a reason for the US to impose pressure on the United Nations.

After all, the US cannot sever itself from the UN for it wants to effect its influence through the UN and obtain its own objectives. The UN is an international organization exercising the greatest influence in the world. With the authorization of the UN or by flaunting the banner of the UN it gives you some sort of "legality" or "righteousness" or that you are advocating something just or in other words "enforcing justice on behalf of heaven" even though you do something "private" in the meantime. Though you have quite some grumbles against the UN, including that you pay too much fees, efficiency too low, unfairness in the formation of the Security Council or what you call "majority tyranny" (namely the minority subordinate to the majority) the US still takes a great account of the UN. Most of the Americans prefer to get the authorization from the UN Security Council before launching attack on Iraq. Or otherwise it's hard to understand why the US is working so hard to get the support of the UN Security Council for the new resolution on Iraq.

The UN is an international organization of the most representative in the world. It is indispensable for the US to take a part in it. As known to the public, of two evils choose the lesser one. It's better to set a gag or a control on it, making it to think it over before acting rather than let it do whatever it likes by casting away the UN and go so far as possible along the road of unilateralism. This is because the UN has no other alternative but it's also a political reality that we must all to face with.

By People's Daily Online

Questions?Comments? Click here

Who'll Pay Money for US-Planned 'Toppling Saddam'?

The Paradox of American Power: Commentary

China Hopes War can be Avoided: FM

>> Full Coverage

China Warns US not to Send Wrong Signals to Taiwan ( 3 Messages)

Germany smashes US Fancy of Submarine Sale to Taiwan ( 2 Messages)

Who'll Pay Money for US-Planned 'Toppling Saddam'? ( 7 Messages)

Chinese Scientists Refute US Claims on Rocket Data Transfer ( 3 Messages)

Traditional Chinese Medicine Grabs World Attention ( 16 Messages)