Perle: "Thank God for the death of the UN "

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

The PNAC are evil.
And the PNAC has siezed the White House
and the US govt.

-------------------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,918812,00.html


Thank God for the death of the UN

Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order

Richard Perle
Friday March 21, 2003
The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.
As free Iraqis document the quarter-century nightmare of Saddam's rule, let us not forget who held that the moral authority of the international community was enshrined in a plea for more time for inspectors, and who marched against "regime change". In the spirit of postwar reconciliation that diplomats are always eager to engender, we must not reconcile the timid, blighted notion that world order requires us to recoil before rogue states that terrorise their own citizens and menace ours.

A few days ago, Shirley Williams argued on television against a coalition of the willing using force to liberate Iraq. Decent, thoughtful and high-minded, she must surely have been moved into opposition by an argument so convincing that it overpowered the obvious moral case for removing Saddam's regime. For Lady Williams (and many others), the thumb on the scale of judgment about this war is the idea that only the UN security council can legitimise the use of force. It matters not if troops are used only to enforce the UN's own demands. A willing coalition of liberal democracies isn't good enough. If any institution or coalition other than the UN security council uses force, even as a last resort, "anarchy", rather than international law, would prevail, destroying any hope for world order.

This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France. When challenged with the argument that if a policy is right with the approbation of the security council, how can it be wrong just because communist China or Russia or France or a gaggle of minor dictatorships withhold their assent, she fell back on the primacy of "order" versus "anarchy".

more.......

[mlawson]

1. Well, I think Dumbo tried to kill it today.... n/t

[WilliamPitt]

2. I threw this in the face of some GOP dork they teed up against me

on New England Cable News...right out of the gate. The guy turned to jello. This one has teeth.

(8 billionth, nine hundred eighty seven millionth, two hundred and six thousandth, thee hundred and fourth reason why DU rules)

[Jacobin]

3. In typical Three Stooges Fashion, the junta has made the UN stronger

The UN was clearly RIGHT, not to pass a resolution to invade Iraq for more reasons than we will be able to pay for in the next ten years.

BTW, the U.N. as imperfect as it may be, is a GREAT institution that does enormous good in the world

[Ivory_Tower]

4. Interesting line near the end

"The most dangerous of these states are those that also possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one, but there are others."

Didn't he get the memo? I thought that the new spin is that Iraq was "persuing a weapons program". He says they have WMD. Am I missing something?

[RainDog]

5. The joke here

...is that Perle and his gang think they are any better than any other repressive, illegal, immoral regime.

I will be thanking god mightly when Perle breathes his last.

hope it...nevermind...you know what I'm hoping.

[Kamika]

6. Why do rightwingers insist UN is some world order?

The thought wouldhave never occured to me. From the moment i knew of the UN i just thought of it as a great institution where countries can try and talk and cooperate instead of fighting.. i still dont see it as anything else.


Mention this to a freeper and you hear stuff like "If the UN wants to run us why doesnt the UN have an army" or " The UN wants to invade the US"

Its godamm incredible when you think about it. They see the UN as some sort of military or some sort of goverment by itselfes and think the un shoudl have a grand army since the un wants to "control" stuff.. the thought hasnt occured to them that the UN is there for cooperations, its not some mega goverment