There is an old saying that “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” The modern version might be “the United Nations passed resolutions while the world was destroyed by terrorists.”

President Bush gave a brilliant but useless speech last week at the United Nations, speaking on the need to combat global terrorism and rogue dictators before they strike or acquire weapons of mass destruction because the stakes are too high to do nothing. Unfortunately, “doing nothing” is exactly what the United Nations has in mind.

The United Nations is at a “fork in the road,” according to Secretary General Kofi Annan, and he is somewhat correct. One path leads to securing peace in the world, and the other leads to the U.N.’s irrelevancy. Annan’s problem is the United Nations has already chosen which path it will take, and the outlook for him and his organization is not good.

The blueprint to world peace does not look the same as it did during the Cold War (since, much to the chagrin of Liberals everywhere, the Soviet Union no longer exists). The road to global peace now includes making sure rogue dictators don’t acquire weapons and terrorists are stopped dead (pun intended) in their tracks. This poses a huge problem for the United Nations, considering half its membership consists of dictators and terror-supporters. If the United Nations cannot or will not follow this blueprint, it will cease to be legitimate in any significant way.

The idea that the United States should even consult this “prestigious” body of dignitaries, let alone beg their permission to defend itself, is laughable. But it does not stop at begging. Annan used his remarks to moan about the necessity for full U.N. coalitions to take on battles in the war on terror. Not only is the United States supposed to beg the United Nations for permission to defend itself, it also has to convince them to participate! Unless Iraq agrees to help with the invasion of Iraq, the United Nations won’t sanction it.

The United Nations is losing credibility, and fast. How can an institution that earlier this year elected Lybia to chair its council on human rights be taken seriously? Apparently the Taliban was unavailable due to their recent overthrow. What kind of credibility does the United Nations have after it let Iraq defy them like a junior high student defies a substitute teacher? It wasn’t until the real teacher (the United States) went back into the classroom that the troublemakers were punished and order was restored, proving the United Nations has only the credibility the United States allows it to have (by enforcing its resolutions, paying its bills, etc.)

Despite the fact the United Nations has sent its worthless peacekeeping force into situations much less egregious, an invasion of Iraq was somehow not warranted. Rape chambers and mustard gas weren’t enough to get a rise out of the Security Council. Letting Saddam Hussein violate resolutions for nine years cost thousands of innocent Iraqis their health, dignity or lives. If the United Nations couldn’t even get on board for the war with Iraq for the humanitarian aspects, what good are they? Kosovo was justified for much less.

Despite the fact the United Nations is fundamentally opposed to the United States in more ways than one, American Liberals demand respect of the United Nations like it is the fourth branch of U.S. government. Perhaps the fact the United Nations only sanctions wars in which the United States has no actual stake is what makes the United Nations so popular with Liberals.

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright has been everywhere blasting the Bush administration, saying the president should apologize to the United Nations. Liberals honestly believe the United States must bend over backwards to accommodate this band of thugs and terrorists in order to protect itself. Of course, the dreaded Liberal double standard rears its ugly head once again when discussing the United Nations. Bill Clinton never once got permission to “unilaterally” lob cruise missiles or otherwise attack anyone. Was Secretary Albright insisting we apologize then?

Even though France couldn’t “secure” a loan for a tank, it has a permanent seat on the Security Council. Liberals demand we let the likes of France determine our foreign policy. Why is a helpless European country like France making security decisions for anyone?

After he was done speaking, President Bush did not wait to hear the speaker that followed him, French President Jacques Chirac. Needless to say, Bush did not miss much. Americans do not elect the members of the United Nations, and the members do not represent American interests. Yet they demand to have the authority to determine the foreign policy of the United States. The Revolutionary War was fought for similar reasons; however, in today’s world, there is no way the Security Council would approve of such an action.

The Right Angle appears every Monday. Brian is a law student. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Egyptian.