Now that the war in Iraq is winding down and there is diverse discussion about post-war activities to bring civil government to these people, the United Nations thinks it can play a part in promoting democracy and self-government to the liberated people of Iraq. No one has admitted this will be an easy task and I'm not saying it will be a piece of cake either. But what we need to be focused on is the goal of helping the Iraqis people to be governed by the Iraqis, for the Iraqis and of the Iraqis. After seeing all that had transpired and what I have learned over the past few weeks I keep asking myself whether those countries who have the deciding votes in the U.N. will make this happen.
Kadashan by Bertrand J. Adams Sr.
We have seen how France, Russia and Germany voted on the resolution to use force only a month ago. It was mainly the United States and Britain who were stalwarts in seeing this war through from beginning to end. I was puzzled at why Russia, Germany and France were just as stalwart against the war on the onset. And then about midway through all the conflict, I was troubled by the discovery about how each of these countries had an indirect part in the war. Russian tanks and weapons were used by the Iraqis troops; they trained the Iraqis to use these weapons. France also contributed weapons and ammunition. And then the Germans - they were the one who were contracted to design and build those bunkers under those elaborate palaces of Saddam Hussein. Sure, someone will argue the United States helped Iraqi years ago with training and weapons, but we never hide that fact.
We all know the U.N. is comprised of a host of countries and since its early stages, the majority of general secretaries have been from socialistic or communist countries. Even though the purpose of the U.N. is to promote and foster peace throughout the world, if you monitor those who had the capacity to manipulate you'll find that reluctance to accomplish its mission was forestalled in many ways. Look at the Somalia and Bosnia aftermaths. The U.N.'s attempts to bring civil government into these countries in actual fact never happened.
Many people in the early days of the U.N. felt the Unites States should have no part of it and that we would be more effective by dealing with countries on an individual basis through our ambassadors. Yep, I think our ambassadors will do a better job dealing with troubled countries than the so-called policies of the U.N. Here is why.
We are experts at developing credentials that foster freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Look at our own history and what we accomplished. Falling short of a miracle, the founding fathers were visionaries. Doesn't the Good Book say somewhere that "Where there is no vision, people parish?" The vision must be virtuous, however. Contrast that with the so-called illusions of Saddam, Hitler, Stalin and other dictators. Even though I may have some thoughts about where our governments are out of compliance at this day and age, we still have the expertise, knowledge and the wherewithal to assist broken countries struggling for freedom and democracy.
And then there are factions of experts who actually believe the diverse people in Iraq will never agree to any one form of government. It is true as true can be, but review, if you will, the diverse people who constructed the principles we cherish. I believe that people have the right to disagree with the way our governments are functioning, but men of vision fostered this as a hallowed birthright. Hopefully, when Iraq is settled they may still have the privilege of doing so, but in an organized manner rather than the anarchy we have witnessed since Baghdad was over-run by the coalition troops.
Back to the UN's involvement: We can let it play a part, perhaps on a limited bases like performing the humanitarian responsibility. Perhaps then, they will learn a little about human nature.
Kadashan is the Tlingit name of Bertrand J. Adams Sr., who lives in Yakutat.