Decentralise the world’s power

THE EDITOR: The United States, the United Nations — is there really any difference? Sometimes I really wonder.

When the United States decided to attack Iraq, the UN’s views were ignored.  After they finished destroying that country, the US continued to ignore the United Nations when it was said that the UN should have a major role in rebuilding Iraq. It is interesting to note that the former Iraqi Ambassador to the UN described the Secretary General as “an employee of the American State Department”. Russian President Putin also recently said that “some countries make decisions and expect everybody else to agree with them”. Little doubt about who he’s referring to.

Now the Americans are having talks with the North Koreans about nuclear arms — shouldn’t this be the job of the UN? Sounds very much like the US is the only country that has a problem with North Korea’s nuclear arms because I have heard no mention of this from that great talk shop, the Security Council. The rest of the world sits by and allows the Americans to do as they please, invade who they like, and threaten who they like; seems the most recent threat is to the Belgians over a planned lawsuit against General Tommy Franks concerning the bombing of the marketplace in Baghdad. It also appears that American soldiers have started shooting innocent protestors. I wonder if they would like it if someone put a bullet in Jay Garner (or George Bush, for that matter).

A French assemblyman has suggested that the European nations need to re-arm in order to present a viable deterrent to American aggression, and perhaps that isn’t a bad idea. Since the fall of the USSR, the United States has no opponent which makes them think twice before embarking on their arbitrary political and military objectives. A united foreign policy on the part of the European Union (with the firepower to match) seems the only alternative to American arrogance.

JEREMY BOYD
Gulf View