Editorial: Bush's woes prove UN leader's case

The United Nations Secretary General stated no more than the obvious yesterday when he warned that "pre-emptive" war, conducted without the blessing of the UN Security Council, carried the seeds of disorder. But it needed to be said. And what better time than just before the United States President was to address the General Assembly.

Not much has been heard of the doctrine of pre-emption since the war in Iraq. The predictable opposition to a US occupation, the continuing chaos in Iraq and the failure to find the weapons that provided the pretext for war have tarnished the President's triumph somewhat. The costs of the escapade are mounting, in American lives and dollars. George W. Bush has come cap-in-hand to seek the help of the organisation he defied only six months ago.

The members, in return, had a right to hear at least a note of regret for the unilateral action and, in the circumstances, a reconsideration of the strategy of pre-emption. They got neither. Mr Bush's speech was a disappointing restatement of the dubious indictment he always brought against the former Iraqi ruler - "The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction ... " - coupled still with the arrogant assumption that the US and its few allies in this action best knew what was good for the world and indeed for the UN.

"A coalition of nations acted to defend the peace, and the credibility of the United Nations," he told the Assembly. He continues to insist he was enforcing the Security Council's demands on the Iraqi regime, ignoring the fact that in proceeding without the endorsement of the Security Council he did more to undermine its authority than Saddam Hussein's wretched games with the weapons inspectors had done.

But that is history now. It is a pity Mr Bush cannot admit to some mistakes because it really is time, as he likes to say, to "move on". Iraq is in a terrible state, the post-war initiative for Palestine is in tatters, militant Islamists have a heightened sense of grievance, sporadic terrorism continues against Western targets. It is imperative that the US occupation gives way to something more acceptable to most Iraqis, and the US should be open to the possibility that UN leadership of a transitional authority could be in everyone's interest.

Mr Bush adheres to the hope of his most aggressive advisers that democracy in Iraq will work a miracle in the Middle East. "The success of a free Iraq will be watched and noted throughout the region," he told the Assembly. "Millions will see that freedom, equality and material progress are possible at the heart of the Middle East. Leaders in the region will face the clearest evidence that free institutions and open societies are the only path to long-term national success and dignity."

He appears unaware, or perhaps does not care, that democracy, freedom and national dignity for most Iraqis require the US to get out of their affairs. Even the UN would face resentment, on the evidence of the bombing of its office in Baghdad, if it were to take over leadership of the reconstruction and the efforts to return the country to self-rule.

The US has no easy way of getting out of Iraq with its dignity intact, and Americans know it. Despite the President's continuing displays of bravado, there can be hope he is wiser for the Iraqi experience. He is not now mustering a military coalition against Iran, though it is now suspected of preparing to develop weapons of mass destruction. And he is treating North Korea with care. There is reason to hope we might not see such reckless unilateral action from Washington again.

The UN needs a decisive prod from the superpower at times. But as the Secretary General said, any state that claims to act in the interests of international peace and security "needs the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations". That principle seems proven now.

Full text: President Bush's speech to the UN General Assembly

Herald Feature: Iraq