| ||
| ||
| ||
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Debating the U.N.'s relevance
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.N. vote on a second resolution has been postponed as the United States continues its attempt to secure enough votes in favor of military action against Iraq. With war likely, has the United States undermined the United Nations' influence? Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, stepped into the "Crossfire" with hosts Robert Novak and Paul Begala to debate the U.N.'s relevance. BEGALA: One of the issues the president has raised repeatedly and I think sensibly is the credibility of the United Nations. Let me suggest that perhaps one of the reasons we're not doing very well there is the credibility of the president himself. Case in post point, The Washington Post reported the other day and I'm reading from the Post, "A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations chief nuclear inspector said yesterday, in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions. Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed not authentic after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts." Why are we offering evidence that's fabricated? TANCREDO: Well, first of all ... I know that we have a very short time to talk about a very important topic, but there's really only one word that I can describe or use to describe the U.N.; it is, in fact, irrelevant. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that this information has been deemed to be fabricated or anything else because the U.N. doesn't matter. It is nothing but a debating society that has really taken now its lead in kicking the heck out of the United States. That's its main focus. But in terms of what really happens in this world or whether or not we should care one way or the other about how it votes, that is ridiculous. BEGALA: Surely you're not saying that because you don't like the U.N. it's OK to say false things.
SCHAKOWSKY: Well, I just think that is absolutely ridiculous. It is in the United States' interest to have strong international bodies in order to isolate rogue nations and rogue states. And just to say, "It's my way or the highway," or "If the United Nations won't rubber-stamp what we believe is right, then good- bye, Charlie," that is ridiculous. It is in our interest to do it and certainly not in our interest to present false information. The United States itself is becoming isolated, and unless we decide we're going to be the policemen everywhere and go in guns blazing ... rather than diplomacy, then I think we need to be helping to strengthen the United Nations. It's really our call. We can make it relevant or not. TANCREDO: We have absolutely nothing to do with this relevance, frankly. It's interesting to me to hear that kind of discussion -- how important the U.N. is today on this issue with Iraq. How important it is ... when cowboy Bill decided that we should go ahead and bomb Yugoslavia, a country that absolutely had no threat to the United States whatsoever. Now, bad guy there. That is absolutely true. But did Yugoslavia ever pose a threat to the United States? No. Bill Clinton decided to bomb Yugoslavia and he did not ask for the U.N.'s [approval,] as a matter of fact, the U.N. didn't support it. It didn't matter then to the people here on the Hill. I saw not one bit of protest on the street. It's because, of course, the issues are all political. ... It's a political society. That's all it is. ... NOVAK: Time! All right, Ms. Schakowsky, I want you to listen to something that President Bush said in his news conference Thursday night. Video clip: BUSH: I want the United Nations to be effective. It's important for it to be a robust, capable body. It's important for its words to mean what they say and as we head into the 21st Century. Mark, when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission. NOVAK: Ms. Schakowsky, do you think we need anybody's permission to ... bomb Iraq? Do you believe we need the permission of the U.N. to go to war? SCHAKOWSKY: No, the president keeps talking about United States security as if Saddam Hussein were Osama bin Laden or responsible for 9/11, an immediate threat. NOVAK: I'm sorry, your answer was no to this question? I asked the question, "Do you think we need the United Nations' authority to go to war" and I didn't get your answer. SCHAKOWSKY: No -- no, no, no. No, you didn't say that, you said to go into Iraq. NOVAK: ... Let's just get what the question is and then you can give the answer. He says when it comes to our security about attacking Iraq, we really don't need anybody's, that is, the U.N.'s permission. Now I'm asking you a simple question. Do you agree or disagree with that? SCHAKOWSKY: If U.S. security is at stake I agree with the president. If it is not at stake, which I don't believe it is in this situation with Iraq, then I think we should work with the international community. That's my answer.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
AIRS: Weekdays 4:30 p.m. ET / 1:30 p.m. PT
