President Bush declared, in one of his speeches, that either the United Nations bares its responsibility to disarm Saddam Hussein, or it will become irrelevant as its predecessor, the League of Nations. The Hawks in the defense department and the right wing analysts have been arguing that the failure of the UN to authorize war on Iraq, as the US wants, is a proof that it became as ineffective as the League of Nations. Therefore, the US should ignore the UN and wage a unilateral war on Iraq. It should be noted here that both the League of Nations and the UN were created based on US proposals.

When Italy started the mobilization to invade Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935, the Emperor of Abyssinia asked the League of Nations to protect his country from the Italian invasion and warned that, if the Italian aggression were allowed to continue, no nation would be safe. Unfortunately, Italy invaded Abyssinia. In few years, the Second World War started where no one in the world was safe. 

Why the League of Nations failed, and who were responsible for this failure?  In fact, the League of Nations did the required job and declared that the war on Abyssinia by Italy is an aggression. Consequently, the League assembly activated Article 16 of the League Covenant to impose sanction on Italy. During the meeting of the Assembly of the League in Geneva on September 11, 1935, the British Foreign Minister, Sir Samuel Hoare, pushed hard for collective actions against the Italian aggression. The League imposed the sanction on November 18. 

Who was responsible for the failure of the League of Nations? The popular belief is that the League itself is responsible for the failure, because of its inability to act to stop Mussolini from invading Abyssinia. The reality is that the League acted forcefully to stop the war by imposing sanctions on Italy, but England and France were the nations that undermined the sanction, and made it useless. Italy bares a major responsibility in the demise of the League, but England and France bare the heaviest burden. A sheriff who is willingly refusing to enforce a court order would undermine the law more than a criminal does. 

Who is responsible for the weakening of the UN?

In the western media, the role of England and France in the collapse of the League is not normally highlighted.  The picture is always portrayed as a fascist leader, Mussolini, acted unlawfully, while the international organization, League of Nations, failed to respond to stop the unlawful act. This is exactly the picture that the US administration has been trying to paint for the stand off between Saddam and the United Nations.

The majority of the world nations and population paint a different picture for the Iraqi crisis. They see the invasion of the US to Iraq, without a mandate from the UN, as the invasion of Italy to Abyssinia without a mandate from the League of Nations. Therefore, according to this group, the USA is the party that ignored the international law, and she would be responsible for the UN demise. Many analysts argue that the UN mandated inspection for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) not for the invasion of Iraq or for the change of the regime. 

The US and Britain argued that Saddam Hussein possesses WMD, but they could not provide any credible proof of their allegations. The proof that Britain provided was an outdated paper authored by a student in California in 1991. The British admitted this fact, but insisted that the information in the document is still valid. The proofs provided by the US were either refuted by the inspectors or found to be forged. The Secretary of State admitted that some of the documents were forged, but denied that the US committed the act of forgery. 

So who undermined the UN? Could it be Saddam Hussein? We do not need to guess; the US does not deny that she wants to see the UN weakened and try to prevent the UN from playing any role in Iraq after the war. 

Do we need the United Nations?

Most of the people in the world believe that they do need the UN as a protection against the hegemony of the US. In the US, the pro-UN group believes that the role of the UN is irreplaceable, since it provides a legal framework for any actions needed to ensure world peace. On the other side, the anti-UN group argues that the UN ties the hands of the US in world affairs. They point out that the actual power of the US is not reflected in the UN system, where a midsize country, such as France, has the same power in the Security Council as the US, the strongest country in the history. Therefore, according to this group, the US does not benefit from the UN it is better for the UN to disappear

Would the US be better off without the UN? To answer this question, let us assume some scenarios, and try to anticipate the outcome. 
 

Scenario I: The UN remains with no change in its current structure 

In the last 10 years, the Security Council handed in resolutions on a plate of gold to the US, and relinquished its own power to stop or modify these resolutions after their passage. For example, the US requested from the Council to impose sanctions on Libya after the Lockerbie plane incident. The Council gladly passed the sanction, which could not be lifted without the prior approval of the US, even if Libya fulfilled all its obligations. With this resolution, Libya became under the mercy of the US, while the UN made itself incapable of taking any action.  Similarly, sanction was imposed on Iraq without any mechanism of lifting it, without the agreement of the US. 

The UN gave such power to the US willingly, because the UN trusted that the law-abiding US would not abuse the power given to her. The US had demonstrated that she deserves this trust. For example, in 1998, the US recalled back the planes 5 minutes before dropping their bombs on Iraq, when she was informed by the UN that Saddam has agreed to the UN conditions. Such honesty in dealing with the UN assured the entire world that the US is a trustworthy nation.

The invasion of Iraq without a mandate from the UN has shattered the image of the USA, as a law-abiding nation. Many analysts in the world believe that the Security Council would be reluctant to give the US a free hand in the world affairs, as it used to do in the past. Many nations started to distrust the motives of the US. This distrust manifested itself in the refusal of many nations to pass a resolution to lift the sanction against Iraq, lest the US use this resolution to sell Iraq’s oil to serve the US interest. The second incident is the refusal of the council to condemn or impose sanctions on North Korea for the withdrawal from the treaty of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. This refusal is a blow to the US policies, since it removed a legal pretext for punishing North Korea economically or militarily. Without a sanction on North Korea to weaken her economically and militarily, as happened with Iraq, it would be extremely difficult to pressure her to give up her nuclear program. The end-result is the weakening of the US hands in the international affairs. 

Scenario II: Modifying the United Nation charter

This scenario would pose a great problem to the US. Many counties feel that the UN Security Council membership structure is unfair. Japan, for example, thinks that she deserves a permanent seat in the council, since it has the second largest economy in the world. India also thinks that she deserves a permanent seat, since it has a population of 1000 millions, second only to china. Egypt thinks that it deserves such a permanent seat, since it represents the Arab world and Africa, which are not currently represented by a permanent seat. Many nations are unhappy about the composition of the Security Council, and opening the door for the change of the charter would be a lifetime chance for every nation to enhance her standing in the UN. 

Any change in the charter requires the approval of the majority in the UN assembly. Since the developing countries hold more than 2/3 of the UN seats in the Assembly, it is doubtful that a change that strengthens the US hands in the UN would be ratified. Only changes that strengthen the hands of the developing countries and, in turn, weaken the hands of the US have a chance of ratification. Hence, a change in the UN charter would not be in the interest of the US.

Scenario III: Creating a new organization

Creating a new organization can be justified by arguing that the UN belongs to the post WW2 era of the 20th century. The UN was structured to ensure a balance of power between the five super powers of that time and to ensure that no resolution can be passed without the approval of all the five permanent members. Currently, we have only one super power while the rest of the countries are second-rated powers at best. Hence, one may argue that the world needs a new organization that reflects the new world order.

This argument may have some merit. However, creating a new organization may be easier said than done. In 1945, the world was composed of vector nations, defeated nations, small irrelevant independent nations, and occupied nations. The vector nations assumed the super power status, the defeated and occupied nations did not participate in the creation of the organization, and the small independent nations were happy to have a voice in the new organization. Individually, the small independent nations were not given a meaningful power. However, collectively they were given a substantial power if they spoke with one voice in the Council and the Assembly, since they have enough votes in the Council to block any resolution. In 1945, the creation of the UN represented a win-win situation for all nations, where at least their sovereignty was recognized. 

To create a new organization to replace the UN, its charter must offer the majority of the members more power than what they have now in the UN. With the belief that all nations are created equal, a new organization short of ensuring equality amongst all nations will have low probability of seeing the day of light. This means, if a new organization is created, it is likely that the US and the permanent members would lose the privileges they have in the UN. 

The US may decide to create an organization with what President Bush called, ‘the group of willing.’ If this took place, nothing would stop the rest of the world from creating a competing organization. The world would then become a more dangerous place than during the cold war, since legitimacy would be divided, and chaos will prevail in the world affairs. If chaos prevails, war on terror would fail. 

Scenario IV: The US act unilaterally 

In this case, the US would engage in a continuous war around the world to impose her will on the world community. Although such scenario is possible in theory, its implementation would be problematic. For one thing, the US cannot endure heavy causality for a long time for unjustified cause. Second, the US may not be able to carry the heavy cost of the war. Third, such conflict will disturb the world trade, which may lead to a world depression. 

In conclusion, it can be argued that the US benefited the most from the UN and stands to lose the most from its demise. The UN was a powerful tool in the hands of the US. With the UN, the US advanced her cause, weakened her enemies, and enhanced her stature in the world. So, why, the US wants to destroy the UN? To me, the US action defies logic, unless the US administration is certain that they will prevail in every conflict.