|
March 20, 2003
Scott over at the Eye of the Beholder has a good post on the UN. He argues that the UN has been a failure in terms of ensuring global security. That case has also been made by F Gareth Parker here in relation to the Australian Labor Party's support for a UN sanctioned war with Iraq. Basically the case is that the UN is nothing but a bunch of countries arguing for their interests. Gareth's is a good post with interesting comments.
This is a fuller statement of the demise of the UN by Richard Perle, a US neo-con. The security council of the UN is not capable of ensuring order and saving us from anarchy is the case argued.
Scott accepts the demise of the UN then goes beyond this to talk about a new international security order. He says:
"The point is that nations will above all else protect what they perceive to be their vital security interests. And if nations perceive that the UN is inadequate for the task, then they will act unilaterally.
In the case of the US, this of course has knock-on effects elsewhere. North Korea and China being prime examples. But this is illustrative of the need for an effective international security system, rather then a need to go back to the obviously inadequate UN.
If we are to build a workable order for the future we need to ask hard questions of the international community and face a few unpalatable home truths. Pretending that 'everything is ok, it's just those reckless Americans' is to be in denial."
Well, we do have a new world order. it has been outlined by the New American Century thinktank as a global pax America, neo-con style. According to the document Rebuilding America's Defences the world order in the American century is to be structured around maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. It is defended here and criticised here For a commentary A Wilful Blindness
These global strategic concerns of a hegemonic US involves the US fighting and winning simultaneous major theater wars---eg., Iran and North Korea--- and performing policing duties to ensure that the security environment in critical regions (eg., South East Asia, the Middle East) is under control.
Given this the politicians hope for a clean and swift war through shock, awe and annihilate to cause the Iraqi regime to collapse like a house of cards is disingenious. Australia has signed up to The Long Haul (subscription only)---- 40 years plus.
Its going to be a bumpy ride.
Update Some Australians are begining to spell out thebumps ahead
|
PNAC is scary. How can the neo-cons promote themselves as being out to liberate the world and at the same time have a policy of maintaining US global power at any price?
They seem to be somewhat contradictory aims.