Posted by Roland's response to my old friend CS (cont.) (184.108.40.206) on April 16, 2004 at 20:22:33:
In Reply to: As an Australian observer posted by Roland on April 15, 2004 at 18:40:41:
I believe this is vital and despite any peripheral corrupting elements, we have, as I see it, no alternative to that of the UN. Bear in mind that the UN may not reach a resolution that all parties agree with, but it is democratic and an open forum for decision making. It is not a single administrator dictating world foreign policy. Although you personally may not believe it (at least not consciously) there are some in your country, especially in the present Administration, who see that US ascendancy and governance is a viable alternative to the UN, who see that their view of how the world should operate is how it should actually be. This notion makes me shudder. The idea that the World’s only remaining Superpower is “offering” itself as the new world umpire scares me and many sane-thinking world citizens. One has only to observe the “Rumsfeld Diplomacy” (previously alluded to) to be gravely concerned, or Powell’s audacious endeavours to “justify” war based on Iraq’s global weaponry – that still have not been found. The US led Coalition is still assuming that, with the luxury of more time, such an arsenal will be found, a means to appease the gullible in its own country. Yet when the Chief UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, sought time prior to the US invasion, it was vehemently opposed by the US. Despite most major powers objecting to invasion, invasion occurred. Such was and is the arrogance and assumption of power that the US now embraces. It was the self declaration by Rumsfeld and others that the UN was irrelevant that revealed the hand of your Government on that pivotal day.
Post a Followup