This artice, from The Toronto Star, takes a look at the relationship between the US and the UN over the course of the situation in Iraq. Also presents a look at the hidden symbolism of the unanimous vote on Secutiry Council Resolution 1511. Full-text unavailable until the next issue of World Press Review.
This article, from Italy's La Stampa, takes a look at the position of the UN after the US's bold flouting of the Security Council in Iraq. Also briefly discusses the issue of Security Council reform. Full-text unavailable until the next issue of World Press Review.
Multilateralism is a means, not an end, and there is no more multilateral body than the UN. That may make it unwieldy at times, but the UN's inclusiveness is the key to the legitimacy only it can confer. The organization thus remains an essential force in international politics, and one the United States benefits from greatly. Summary only online.
Bureaucratic. Ineffective. Undemocratic. Anti-United States. And after the bitter debate over the use of force in Iraq, critics might add “useless” to the list of adjectives describing the United Nations. So why was the United Nations the first place the Bush administration went for approval after winning the war? Because for $1.25 billion a year—roughly what the Pentagon spends every 32 hours—the United Nations is still the best investment that the world can make in stopping AIDS and SARS, feeding the poor, helping refugees, and fighting global crime and the spread of nuclear weapons.
