U.N. HUBRIS George F. Will New York Post, March 13, 2003
War precipitates clarity as well as confusion, and the war against Iraq already has clarified this: The United Nations is not a good idea badly implemented, it is a bad idea.
For France, and for the United Nations, through which France magnifies its own significance, the objective of disarming Iraq, if ever seriously held, has been superseded by the objective of frustrating America. And for America, the imperative of disarming Iraq will soon be supplanted by the imperative of insulating U.S. sovereignty from U.N. hubris.
Just as the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire, the U.N. is a disunited collection of regimes, many of which do not represent the nations they govern. The United Nations is premodern, because it is unaccountable and irresponsible: Inebriated by self-approval, it is grounded in neither democratic consent nor territorial responsibilities, nor independent fiscal means, nor the material means of enforcing its judgments.
The U.N. should contemplate the prudence required of the U.S. Supreme Court. The court's power flows from the public's deference, which depends on the court accepting a limited role amid powerful political forces. The court has occasionally imperiled its authority by overreaching, as when it tried to settle the slavery controversy with the Dred Scott decision. France, by attempting to lasso the American locomotive with the cobwebs of U.N. procedures, has emboldened Iraq and made war inevitable, much as the Dred Scott decision lit the fuse of war.
France wants to use the United Nations to acquire derivative dignity in a "multipolar" world with blocs of nations comparable to America in economic vigor, military power and political will. France evidently believes such blocs can be summoned into existence because their existence would be convenient… France would be well-advised to avoid the subject of other potential powers. With India already the most populous democracy and soon to be the most populous nation…why exactly is France (population 60 million) a permanent member of the Security Council?
Reverence for the United Nations translates into resistance to change. Liberals eager to be the definers of true conservatism say that once liberal institutions have been put in place it is unconservative not to conserve the institutions. But it is reactionary, not conservative, to preserve the status quo of NATO 15 years after the end of the Cold War. Or of the U.N. Security Council, which is a snapshot of 1945 delusions and compromises…
The war will be followed by a presidential election in which all candidates must answer this: "Do you believe that any use of U.S. military power lacks legitimacy unless approved by France, Russia and China?" The Republican candidate has already answered.
