The hullabaloo on Syria is an embarrassment to the United Nations (UN) because it’s a paradox to what UN stands for. We cannot shy away from the great ideas of President F. D. Roosevelt who coined the words “United Nations” in 1942. If the people shouting right now against President Obama’s idea on Syria were adults in 1942, they probably would have told President Roosevelt to mind his business at home but this wasn’t the case then since the idea was to prevent inhuman behavior and maintain relative peace across the globe. The average human mind forgets so soon but it should be clear to everybody that the United States (US) has not changed its name or values from 1942 to present date. Indeed, the records are there in the Internet for those who didn’t purchase the books on America’s history and foreign policy.
We were told by Secretary John Kerry that the UN inspectors’ mandate was to determine whether chemical weapons were used in Syria and that the inspectors were not to apportion blame for this heinous crime against humanity. If this is correct, then the UN inadvertently did an inaccurate job in Syria because their hands are tied by countries like China and Russia with veto powers. Apparently, the UN was formed to replace the League of Nations which ceased its activities after failing to prevent the Second World War. It’s not a rumor that Japan, Italy, and Germany undertook military aggression in the 1930s and when they failed to censure themselves in the League of Nations, this led to World War II (1939-1945). The other side of the Syria debacle is that both the President Obama’s administration and many Americans are considering the financial cost to the US if “boots have to be on ground” in Syria. It should be noted to all and sundry that the principle of life comes before money. In other words, money is secondary to human lives. Keep in mind that money is the root of all evils. Never must we allow money to deter us from realistic principles that govern human life. Thus, Assad is a criminal and must therefore be kicked out of power immediately. Human government was the second institution that God created, and whether you’re a Christian, Hindu, or any faction of religion under God’s umbrella, the scripture (Pro, 24:23) was very specific that it’s not good to show partiality in Judgment. It’s partial to keep Assad in power because of the financial cost or doubts as to who his (Assad) successor would be. Nature has its wrath in different ways on partial decisions, so the Obama administration should take the bull by the horn and calibrate his strategy to fit the reality in Syria. Assad, must go because the resources needed to re-build whatever the US bombers would destroy in Syria belong to all Syrians and not Assad’s. It’s therefore imperative to limit Syria’s punishment to Assad and his cohorts and not the resources that belong to all Syrians.
The UN was formed at San Francisco, US in 1945 when President Roosevelt said that an International organization was the best means to prevent wars. This great man of honor (President Roosevelt) “met with Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin in Tehran, Iran, in November 1943 where he (Roosevelt) proposed that the United States, Great Britain, Soviet Union, and China would enforce peace as the four policemen.” The interesting word here is “policemen.” With this, it’s obvious that those clamoring for the United States to quit the “police officer’s” job are either not knowledgeable of the tenets of the US role on the world stage or they lack understanding of God’s message of partiality. That China and Russia would turn their eyes away out of self-interest on commerce (partiality) does not make the calculus right. Way back in the 18th century, German philosopher Immanuel Kant proposed that countries should unite and punish any nation that committed an act of aggression. Why should Syria’s Assad go scot-free and remain in power after killing his own people with impunity? What stops the US from “going it alone” or unilateralism when the bombers are available? If anyone is in debt to the tune of $1,000, what difference does it make if the person owes another $5 to prosecute a murderer? If President Obama refuses “to use the US power, that power, for purpose of foreign policy, did not really exist.” The fear of the unknown should not deter the principles of nature. That you were involved in a car accident yesterday would not stop you from riding in a car today, isn’t. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars are totally different from the Syria impasse; as such, the American people must evaluate these scenarios differently with a view to back Mr. President on his mission to Syria.
The Syria’s impasse in Washington is stemming from several angles. Most dreaded is the point that many lawmakers are afraid to lose their seats in the next election so they are compelled to dance to the tune of people who are less knowledgeable than themselves on the values of America. Truth be told, if most of them agitating against Mr. President’s proposal are asked their concern(s) on this Syria matter, you can bet that at best you will hear that Americans are hungry at home; no jobs, and therefore, the money to prosecute Syria should be used at home. These guys have to be pardoned because the system is democratic and therefore each adult has a vote directly or indirectly. They are not educated enough to understand the role of US foreign policy to America’s business. However, the lawmakers will be deemed to be partial when they fall to these protests because they know much better than the people in their constituencies.
The dividends of democracy may not always be positive but it has to be consistent. Of course the Syria matter at hand is one of such instance from the perspective of the US hierarchy in governance. If you were to ask all the past presidents, Senate presidents and Speakers of the US from the days of President Roosevelt to junior President Bush, their vote on Syria would definitely be Yes to Syria’s attack. Unless, the people protesting against President Obama’s decision on Syria have sound reason to believe that these past leaders in the US have psychiatric problems, then, they (the protesters) must have a re-think of their protest. The reason is obvious; they (the leaders) understand what the US stands for. A situation whereby the UN is overwhelmed and has not acted fast enough to save lives in Syria does not negate the fact that there are benefits being in the United Nations.
Lives in Texas, USA.
September 6, 2013