Obama And The U.N. 
By J. F. Kelly, Jr. 
August 2, 2012 
Coronado News
– HYPERLINK http://www.coronadonewsca.com/opinion/article_de35710e-dce8-11e1-b30f-001a4bcf887a.html \t _blank http://www.coronadonewsca.com/opinion/article_de35710e-dce8-11e1-b30f-001a4bcf887a.html
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, then-president George W. Bush warned the world that nations that hosted terrorists on their soil that posed an existential threat to America or her citizens would not be immune from preemptive attack. The U.S.-led wars that followed in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated Bush’s determination to strike terrorism abroad, hopefully before we had to deal with it at home, with a coalition of the willing if possible but alone if necessary.
While popular at first, public enthusiasm for the costly war in Iraq began to wane here and even more so among our European allies as casualties mounted. Eventually, European leader were decrying America’s tendency to go it alone without consulting its traditional allies. Barack Obama assumed the presidency with promises to work more closely with the U.N. and the leaders of the European social democracies he so admired. He also vowed to “reset” relations with former adversaries and to reach out and engage diplomatically hostile regimes like Iran and Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. This policy won Obama the instant approval of a world community becoming more resentful of America as the world’s only remaining superpower and increasingly aware of their own lack of military resources.
The results of that reliance on diplomatic engagement are now quite evident. Efforts to reach out to Iranian and Syrian leaders have been conspicuous failures. Iran continues to defy U.S. bluster and ignore U.N. sanctions as it moves inexorably toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons which will threaten the very existence of Israel and its people. Following mostly bloody uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, Syria erupted in civil war with Bashar al-Assad using his military to slaughter thousands of his own countrymen.
Throughout all of these world-changing events, the U.S., its population increasingly weary of foreign military engagement, has stood on the sidelines, watching the carnage, seemingly powerless to stop it or even to influence events to its advantage. Instead, it relied on the Obama doctrine of deferring the U.N. and seeking consensus. Meanwhile Russia and China, who care little about consensus, allies of two of the world’s most murderous regimes and exporters of terrorism, Iran and Syria, have vetoed any Security Council attempt at serious actions against them. Once again, the utter inability of the world organization to broker peace, stop the slaughter of civilians or to influence events has been demonstrated.
Also demonstrated for all to see is the failure of the Obama policy of diplomatic engagement and relationship resetting. While perhaps popular still in European capitals like Paris and Brussels, it has sent a clear message of weakness to our rivals and adversaries: the United States, with its shrinking military, horrendous budget problems and reliance on the U.N. and world consensus, is decreasingly viewed as relevant in influencing world affairs. While this may be acceptable to the administration and perhaps even to a large segment of the American people pre-occupied with the sputtering economy, it is a certain sign of our diminishing status as a world power and leader.
This administration clings yet to the fiction that we should act, even when our vital interests are concerned, only through the U.N. and with broad consensus. This is the same mindset that argued, fortunately unsuccessfully, that we should ratify the flawed Law of the Sea Treaty which, among other things, would have subjected us to the jurisdiction of a U.N.-affiliated body to resolve maritime disputes.
And what has the U.N. done to warrant such confidence and trust? Has it stopped wars and ethnic cleansing such as in the former Yugoslav republics or in Somalia or Sudan? It has not. Nor has it done anything to stop the bloodshed in Syria or during the other Arab uprisings. Instead, it has employed the hapless Kofi Annan to work with al-Assad toward a “solution”. More recent U.N. and U.S. calls for al-Assad to step down demonstrate the dream world that these diplomats live in. Why would al-Assad step down when he knows full well the same fate that befell Moammar Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak certainly awaits him and that he will remain alive only as long as he clings to power?
If we needed any further proof of the fecklessness of the world body, consider the fact that Iran was recently elected to the 15-member general committee of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. As everyone knows, Iran provides weapons and aid to Syria, Hezbollah and to other terrorist groups and advocates the elimination of Israel and her people. Is this a joke, or what? Unfortunately, the joke is that the world’s still most powerful nation puts its faith and trust in a corrupt, bloated and virtually useless organization that contribute little to world peace except platitudes and endless debates that only buy more time for the world’s tyrants.