My Audacious Hope: President Obama Will Respect the UN Charter

Speaking of the audacity of hope, here is my hope for the Obama administration. I'd like to see if we could get through four years of the Obama administration without invading, bombing, or threatening to invade or bomb any other countries in violation of the UN Charter. Is that too audacious a hope?

My audacious hope is that during the Obama administration, we'll never have to chant or sing "No Blood for Oil," as CodePink did Monday in the "protest cage" at the DNC in Denver:

Democrats often fault the Bush administration for rupturing our relations with allies with its invasion of Iraq. The criticism is correct, but it finesses a key point. Why did the U.S. invasion of Iraq rupture relations with allies? Because the Bush administration thumbed its nose at international law and the UN Charter.

We need a very vigorous and sustained public education campaign in the United States for the UN Charter, and particularly for its prohibition on the use of military force against other UN member states. The principal justification for the creation of the United Nations at the end of the Second World War was precisely to create such a binding prohibition on the signatory countries.

There are only two exceptions to the prohibition: immediate self-defense against actual armed attack, and military actions authorized by the UN Security Council. Since the US invasion of Iraq was not in immediate self-defense against armed attack, and was not authorized by the UN Security Council, it was illegal, as former UN Secretary General Annan affirmed.

If we had a culture of intolerance in the United States for violations of the UN Charter by our leaders -- like the attitude we have towards driving while intoxicated -- the US invasion of Iraq could never have taken place, and all those lives would have been spared. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was only possible because we have a cavalier attitude towards international law, at least as it might apply to the United States. That's not for us, that's for the little people.

We need more Members of Congress like Dennis Kucinich, who, in his powerful speech to the DNC, included violations of international law in his litany of charges against the Bush Administration:

My guess is that Dennis' will be the only speech at the DNC that takes note of the fact that international law also applies to the United States. Let's get busy turning that around.

Comments

[TRYKER]

Alas, some day we are going to need the Intl community to come to our aid, to free us from the tyranny of our own govt. ..to effect a "Regime Change" and ensure our elections are truly democratic.
In fact, we could use them now...come, overlook our elections and keep score beside every Diebold (name changed to confuse masses) machine. Tell us how many votes it switched to rethugs.
IF we get another "amazing win after hours" by true losers, lets call for a regime change, one way or the other. Call in the UN forces.
Of course we should respect the rest of the world...but we have no self-respect so we don't know what you're talking about. And boy oh boy, don't you ever suggest an American is wrong!

[creepyJackalope]

phenomenal. i sure wish Kucinich was taken more seriously. this is one of the best speeches i've seen in a LONG time. UP WITH AMERICA!!!

[Robert Naiman - Huffpost Blogger]

The Democrats in the hall gave him a standing ovation. Because their interests and values are much closer to Kucinich than the Washington pundits want to acknowledge.

[smag]

Your desire for an effective Global Authority is ambitious and good. However the reality is that countries like Russia, Germany, China, France, North Korea as well as the rogue states and obviously the United States mostly act in the best interest of themselves and their citizens. Consensus and Diplomacy in the middle of a mob stand little chance of success. The U.N.'s Theoretical authority is like day dreams and wishes; in the end it does little good.

[Robert Naiman - Huffpost Blogger]

It isn't a question of desiring something that does not exist. The UN does exist. It's a question of whether we can compel our government to comply with international law. That's our principle obligation, regardless of what anyone else does; but an added benefit of doing so, in addition to it being just, is that it is much more likely that other countries would comply with international law if the United States did so.