34 retains UN jurisdiction as to what all available means constitutes.
Even Perle has stated the US actions are not justified in terms of UN authority.
Perle would like to see the UN taken out of the diplomatic process entirely.
To justify the US's actions as upholding UN resolutions would be giving authority back to the UN that Perle, Wolfowitz, etc do not wish to.
The party line will not accept that the war is an extension of the UN.
The only way they can succeed is to intentionally enter into an illegal conflict to weaken the UN. That's what they've done.
You wouldn't want to contradict your buddies now, would you?>>>
>>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--like many of the millions who have marched against military action--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.
No, for Baroness 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, an 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.<<
aei.org |
