You're viewing an archive page. To see the current content on wickens.ca, please go to the main page.

14 September 2002  

Binswanger on Bush

President Bush's UN speech has received almost unanimously positive reviews from right-of-center commentators. The only exception I've seen is an excellent post from Harry Binswanger to his popular Objectivist mailing list. Dr. Binswanger has very kindly given me permission to reproduce it here.

Bush's UN Speech

by Harry Binswanger

First, there should be no United Nations.

If there is a UN, America should not be in it.

If America is in it, our president should not speak there.

If an American president speaks there, he should not surrender America's sovereignty by endorsing the notion that the UN is a world government.

Given that all of these principles were flouted in Bush's speech, how was it otherwise? Pretty bad.

I can't get past what Bush did to destroy the very concept of American sovereignty. E.g., he said

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations...

What in hell authority is he talking about? Authority over what, and backed up by what? If they have "authority" over Iraq, then they have authority over America, and they are a world government. Only—thank God—they have no real military force.

Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance.

And what about all the condemnations of Israel by the UN? Aren't they being defied too, and for longer? So does that mean that America looks to UN resolutions as the ultimate standard?!

All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.

You mean like it never has faced before? You mean, after 50 years of betrayal of the good for the sake of the evil, as in regard to the Soviets and the Red Chinese, now we're going to find out the true mettle of the institution?! Now, on the piddling issue of whether we are going to flick an infected flea off us?

Just for a random pick, out of the sorry history of resolutions, here's what the UN resolved about Israel in 1981, in reaction to Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear facility:

A/RES/36/27
13 November 1981
56th plenary meeting

The General Assembly,

Having considered the item entitled "Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security",

Expressing its deep alarm over the unprecedented Israeli act of aggression on the Iraqi nuclear installations on 7 June 1981, which created a grave threat to international peace and security,

snip

Fully aware of the fact that Iraq, being a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, has subscribed to the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards regime, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied,

snip

Alarmed by the increasing information and evidence regarding Israel's activities aiming at the acquisition and development of nuclear weapons,

Gravely concerned over the misuse by Israel, in committing its acts of aggression against Arab countries, of aircraft and weapons supplied by the United States of America,

snip

1. Strongly condemns Israel for its premeditated and unprecedented act of aggression in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct, which constitutes a new and dangerous escalation in the threat to international peace and security;

2. Issues a solemn warning to Israel to cease its threats and the commission of such armed attacks against nuclear facilities;

3. Reiterates its call to all States to cease forthwith any provision to Israel of arms and related material of all types which enable it to commit acts of aggression against other States;

4. Requests the Security Council to investigate Israel's nuclear activities and the collaboration of other States and parties in those activities;

5. Reiterates its request to the Security Council to institute effective enforcement action to prevent Israel from further endangering international peace and security through its acts of aggression and continued policies of expansion, occupation and annexation;

6. Demands that Israel, in view of its international responsibility for its act of aggression, pay prompt and adequate compensation for the material damage and loss of life suffered as a result of the said act;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to keep Member States and the Security Council informed of progress towards the implementation of the present resolution and to submit a report to the General Assembly at its thirty-seventh session;

8. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirty-seventh session the item entitled "Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security".

So now the UN faces a "defining moment"?!

And I picked the above only because it was something that came up on the first screen in a Google search for "List of all UN Resolutions."

Consider Bush's blindness to the nature of the entity that acts, whether it be the UN or Saddam. He says:

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it — as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkemens and others — again, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown.

It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq ...

Yes, and if Hitler had stopped fighting in 1943, would that have signaled a new openness and accountability in Germany? A mass-murderer is an entity of a certain kind. It is no open question whether Hitler wanted peace nor Attila the Hun nor Saddam Hussein. These men kill for fun and profit. They live to rule and destroy. There's no such option as: "If you can play nice now, you can come back in—just promise you won't commit genocide again."

It's long past the time of admonitions, of "Do this, if you really mean to be peaceful." It's long past the time of warnings "Do this, or else." It's time for action. Past time, actually, by about 11 months.

The only decent part of Bush's speech was his concluding two paragraphs:

We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind.

By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Here, at least, he is saying: we'll defend ourselves—with or without your help.

But this is not the aspect of the speech the world is picking up on (rightly, I think):

A spokesman for Downing Street told the UK's Press Association: "He (Blair) has always believed that the UN was the right place to deal with the issue of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, because it is the UN's authority that has been consistently flouted."

Heavens! The authority of the UN has been flouted! Something must be done.

And:

Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik was quoted by Reuters as saying: "What was positive in his speech is that future action is rooted in the United Nations."

(Those quotes are from the CNN website.)

If a president had to go to the UN in this situation, here's what he might have said:

Iraq is a murderous, totalitarian regime. As such its "government"—actually a terrorist gang—has no legitimacy, no right to exist. Its leaders, Saddam Hussein and his cohorts are murderers who deserve to die. More importantly to us, we have evidence that he has or will soon have weapons of mass destruction that threaten America. Certainty is not required here—the serious possibility of nuclear bombs and germ weapons in the hands of a murdering madman who has vowed destruction to America is enough to guarantee that America will take him out. His days are now numbered.

I do not come before you to seek a resolution against Iraq. I do not come to seek your approval—America does not need your approval in order to defend itself. I do not come to seek your military support—America does not need your support. I come before you only to explain to any rational observer in the world why America is going to liberate Iraq and, without the pretense of a trial, execute Saddam Hussein. And to warn the other dictatorships that dare to threaten us hat their turn will come soon enough.

Except that if the cultural climate permitting such a speech existed, there would be no Saddam and no need to make it.

The Harry Binswanger List (HBL) is an email list for Objectivists, moderated by Dr. Binswanger, for discussing philosophic and cultural issues. The HBL is $10 per month or $100 per year; a free one-month trial is available at: http://www.hblist.com/.

12:20 AM |