During the course of human events, moments arise in which political leaders are forced to make choices that have the potential to alter world history forever. The United Nations now finds itself face-to-face with one of those moments.
On one side, U.S. leaders are attempting to drum up enough support - at least nine votes - to see the U.N. Security Council deliver a March 17 ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to prove Iraq has disarmed or face the wrath of war.
On the other side, French diplomats are launching a similar campaign to put down the U.S.-supported resolution for war in order to see for certain the world's peace-keeping organization exhausts all peaceful avenues of disarming Iraq before engaging in war.
Governing rules of the 15-member council require that a resolution carry at least nine votes to be adopted.
However, if one of the five permanent member countries - the United States, Britain, France, Russia or China - votes "no" on any given proposal, even one supported by the 14 other nations, that measure can be killed.
Russia and France are expected to exercise their veto rights on the March 17 deadline. The U.N. vote is set to be tallied this week.
President Bush said during a Thursday press conference the United States is poised for war in Iraq with or without U.N. support. He said his administration considers Iraq to be a threat to America and that "when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."
But the president should choose his statements with more caution.
When the United States signed on to the U.N. charter, it agreed to work with the world to help promote peace.
If America goes against the conviction of the United Nations, it will then, in effect, be telling the world that it favors war over peace.
The most powerful country in the world cannot afford to make that statement no matter how invincible it feels.
If the United States does garner its nine votes and is vetoed, then its duty will be to continue to make its case to the United Nations.
If, however, the Security Council sides with France and Russia, the United States should respect the fact it's been told "no" and back down.
Bush should lend his ear to the world's will and not draw the nation into war even though he respectfully disagrees. The peace of the world is at stake.
Michigan's senior Sen. Carl Levin, who also is the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, has said a unilateral war runs a great risk of fanning anti-American sentiments in the Middle East instead of curbing it. Many people around the world, including former President Jimmy Carter and the Pope, have agreed to that assessment.
History will be made this week. It wouldn't be prudent for President Bush to attempt to write it alone.
