Podcasts

YR via RSS

For Educators
Teach Youth Radio
Curriculum

Youth Programs
CORE
Outreach

International Voices

"Isn’t it about time we start listening to what the rest of the world is saying?"

By Elijah Leed

The United Nations Security Counsel will be debating whether Iraq poses the severe threat the Bush administration claims. A few weeks ago, Secretary Colin Powel placed the administration’s evidence before the Security Counsel to view. Yet what did this information prove? France, Germany and Russia are still skeptical, and so are more than a few Americans. Their worries are not unduly without cause; they want to go to war only if it is backed by the United Nations. And this poses the question of how far the Bush Administration will go to succeed.

In previous briefings President Bush has declared the Security Counsel will be throwing itself into irrelevancy if it doesn’t comply with the U.S. Are we so egotistical as a nation that we can mock the international community by saying such things? After all, isn’t our whole system of life, a democracy, based around hearing all people?

On February 15th, major anti-war protests were staged all around the world. In Rome, an astounding one million people reportedly came to protest. That is too large of a number to disregard, and the government of Italy might have cause to reconsider its position and lean to a more pro-U.N. stance. In London, there were an estimated 750,000 to a million people protesting. Britain says that it still holds its stance against Iraq with the U.S. even though many of its people consider this illogical. Britain does admit that going to war with so many of its people opposing it would be difficult.

These protests were the strongest in decades and the U.S. should consider them because they are a voice of the international community. French President Jacques Chirac’s case against a war lead by the U.S. is now stronger, and with the estimated five million protesters across Europe, that case is not a weak one.

In all, the international community has definitely reconsidered its approach to war from these protests and is waiting for a decision from the Security Counsel before hastily and blindly throwing themselves into war. This could quite possibly be a sagacious decision, based on the moral questions of whether we are doing the right thing or not. If the international community, save the U.S. and a few others, thinks that Iraq doesn’t pose a horrendous threat as those few claim, why should we jump right into war without proper consideration?

The international community knows Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator. There has never been much question of that. Attacking his own countrymen in the late 80s with mustard gas was a terrible atrocity. He has also mocked and flouted the United Nations most of the long and tedious way through the unarming period. But does that still give reason to the U.S. to go over there and eradicate the country (which will cost an estimated 30 billion or more) when the international community is still unconvinced? We should not only take into account the cost, but also the possibility of civilian casualties, which would more then likely come with war. There would be a major rebuilding process afterwards, with a large amount of U.S. troops over there if the U.S. goes without the United Nations. If the U.S. were to go with the rest of the world it would prove to be much easier and the cost would be lower, which would make it much easier on an already weak U.S. economy.

In addition, a frightening issue that should also be taken into consideration is the backlash that could follow from Arab nations against the U.S. and Israel. If the U.S. goes to war by itself there would be much more criticism of those actions than if the U.S. goes with the United Nations. The consequences aren’t looking very good. Lately President Bush and his administration have had their approval ratings go down dramatically from foreign countries, with distaste growing for the U.S., especially in Middle Eastern countries.

The Bush Administration contends that the whole work of the United Nations is in risk of termination, and is planning to put forward a new resolution for the Security Counsel that would allow the use of force against Iraq. What will happen if the Security Counsel does not agree with the requisites of the new resolution? If the resolution, which has to be ratified by the United Nations, does not get the votes, will the U.S. go to war without the international community? Isn’t the Security Counsel the proper platform for deciding this, not separate countries?

It is a decision of the whole world, not just one country, because the future of the world is not counties working by themselves. With communications and economies becoming global, and issues at stake that will ultimately affect the entire world, isn’t it about time we start listening to what the rest of the world is saying?

— Elijah Leed is a 17-year-old junior from Lewisburg, West Virginia. He enjoys being outdoors and is home schooled.