Ethical Decision War on Iraq

Ethical Decision War on Iraq

This is a critical period for the UN. Underlying the discussion about the war on Iraq, is a struggle for the governance of a world order. Will the unilateralism of the US, as the main superpower, dominate-- or will decisions be made multilaterally, through the UN.? Disagreement within the Security Council, as well as world opinion, has been mobilizing with astonishing speed, slowing the American headlong rush to war.

Public opinion is strongly in favor of an effective UN, retaining sovereignty, but with important limits. The world has taken a long time to recognize that the UN should have had international support to respond quickly to the horror of genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia. Without the support of its most powerful members, the UN lacked the ability to act.

If crimes against humanity occur, in spite of sovereignty, humanitarian intervention should be justified. Given the many conflicting interests of its membership, the UN is the only institution that can bring legitimacy to the management of complex international crises. The war on Iraq is not analogous

to Rwanda and Bosnia.

Multilateralism provides legitimacy and world support, which the United States needs. Increasingly, problems are global. The spread of disease, refugees, global warming, damage to the environment, terrorism and nuclear proliferation are problems which will continute to haunt the future. Ironically, America's belligerent rhetoric--"axis of evil" only increases fears of American domination and stimulates the desire of countries to protect themselves with nuclear weapons. Active world cooperation will be needed for the many difficult problems ahead. This cooperation depends on multilateral participation in decision making. The UN is the only setting where this can happen.

In addition to the demands of negotiation, the UN and its various agencies are currently planning the enormous task of meeting the humanitarian crisis which inevitably follows a war. Secretary General has pleaded for $120 million to pay for contingency planning. Many more millions may be needed. At this moment the