ABSTRACT
A suitably revised and effective United Nations would have responded to the Iraq problem promptly, effectively, and with less risk of armed conflict than we face today. With an equitable, weighted General Assembly voting system it would have:
established and maintained a UN controlled peacekeeping reserve, ready for immediate duty upon the call of the Security Council, and capable of deterring Iraqi adventurism;
outlawed and verified the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear and chemical weapons, further diminishing Iraq’s perception that it has irresistible power;
established limits on the size and equipment of ‘national guard’ units, all that any nation would be permitted under a UN World Security System;
established the principle that a nation could apply to the International Court of Justice if it had a complaint against another nation and know that the court’s decision would be enforced. If Iraq had felt it had a legitimate complaint against Kuwait about stolen oil, or any other issue, it could have petitioned for redress to the world court;
re-established the principle that world law applies to individuals. Thus, Saddam Hussein could have been ordered to cease and desist from threats or use of force. If he had not done so, he could have been 265ordered to appear before the appropriate international court, and if he had failed to appear, the UN could have used necessary force to accomplish his arrest and appearance at trial. This was the principle of the war crimes trials at Nuremburg and Tokyo. Congress and the president approved this month, as part of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, legislation calling for exploration of the need for such a principle.
