by Yousef Munayyer
Massachusetts Daily Collegian (U. Massachusetts-Amherst)
(U-WIRE) AMHERST, Mass. -- Some years back, maybe when I was 12, I remember seeing a T-shirt in the street market in Jerusalem with a picture of a fighter jet on it and the words "Don't worry America . . . Israel is behind you!"
I got a kick out of that. I thought it was really funny since I knew even as a younger child that America's military was superior and that shirt was a mockery.
The events of this week raised several questions and reminded me of that shirt. First, what is the purpose of the United Nations? Why does NATO still exist? Do the American media reflect European popular opinion?
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
These are by no means easy things to answer but here is what I have reasoned and found out. To begin, the United Nations was created after World War II to avert another major war. I think it has done a good job in keeping the superpowers from obliterating each other. It has helped aid many nations via food, peacekeeping missions and medical supplies. Its format allows for diplomatic discussion so people can talk out conflict instead of making quick, irrational decisions that turn out to be tragic.
However, the United Nations' major weakness is that it has no way to enforce its legislation. Sure, if there are no vetoes at the Security Council, use of force could be authorized but that rarely happens. Though this does not mean that we should not recognize the United Nations as legitimate or try to push different agendas regardless of what the international community is saying. The self-proclaimed realists, who are calling the shots in Washington, are paying little attention to the United Nations, saying that they will proceed without the United Nations if it comes to it. However, they still are working with NATO.
It is interesting how these "realists" prefer one international organization over another when a true realist doesn't bother with international organizations at all. NATO is different than the United Nations. It was created to assure Germany did not rise to be a threat in Europe again and to also contain the Soviet Union. Now that the Soviet Union is only mentioned in history books and Germany is a democratic success with no imperial ambitions, why do we bother with NATO? Hasn't it served its purpose?
The school of thought that some in Washington subscribe to would insist that
NATO is now only a burden for the United States. They would ask why we should risk lives and money for the protection of others who now can offer us little protection if any. Yet, we hold onto NATO. In fact we continue to accept new members and many more are on the waiting list to get behind America's defenses. I wonder why we put this burden upon ourselves.
Also, Europe is sending mixed signals about the war with Iraq. France and Germany have said they want to work for a diplomatic solution and at this point do not support a war. Germany used to be behind us on the war until a few months ago. Why the sudden shift? Gerhard Schroeder had to reflect the anti-war opinion of his people on the international stage if he wanted to be re-elected. It was simply a democratic decision. If Germans do not want to go to war, their leader shouldn't say otherwise. Maybe President Bush could learn something here.
And as for France, well what can I say? First off, I could make a lot of jokes about retreating and surrendering but that would be juvenile. I could make jokes about how the French are as wimpy as many pundits on TV claim, who seem to make a living off of that. But let's not forget the French were willing to put their troops on the ground in the Balkans, we were not. I could also say that both France and Germany have separate agendas with Iraq because they made deals for Iraqi oil, but do you seriously think that would be worth jeopardizing the legitimacy of the United Nations and NATO, the two organizations that kept these two historic enemies from ongoing war or invasion? Jacques Chirac also had to make a decision about what was best for his country and paying for a war that his people do not support with money and lives isn't in his best interest.
Finally, a document similar to an Op-Ed has been passed around Europe much like an attendance sheet, for those who support America's stance on Iraq to sign. The signatories are Poland, Hungary, the U.K., Czech Republic, Slovakia, Spain, Denmark, Italy and Portugal.
I just had to find out what the people of these nations thought about the war. You would think that if their leaders signed such a document that the populous would be for war? Wrong.
In Hungary, Zsolt Nemeth of the Parliament's Foreign Relations Committee publicly criticized the president of Hungary for not conferring with the committee because it doesn't reflect the nation's opinion. The same can be said for Denmark where their prime minister was also publicly criticized for signing the document without consulting his government. In Poland, over 75 percent of the people polled by the nation's largest newspaper are opposed to a war on Iraq. Outgoing Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic also did not have the consent of his government on this issue, and for this he was also criticized. And finally in Slovakia, Prime Minister Dzurinda said, "we did not make this decision according to polls." (Could it be because Slovakia is rallying for NATO membership?)
So when the media or Don Rumsfeld tell me that Europe (old or new) is with us on Iraq, I don't buy it. Just like I would never buy a T-shirt that says, "Don't worry America ... Denmark is behind you!"
