Some argue that the United Nations has been made redundant now that the US has gone to war without its blessing.
But wouldn't that institution have lost far more credibility if the US had succeeded in bullying and bribing its members to condone an attack on Iraq against their better judgement?
In the latter case, the UN - to the vast majority of its general assembly members - would have ceased to be a credible organisation and would no longer be seen as one that could stand up to its most powerful member.
But by rejecting US pressure for war, there is in my view every hope for it - perhaps with some alterations to the voting and veto structures - as the best chance of reining in American (or any other future hyperpower's) hegemonic ambitions.
By failing to get UN approval, the US (with Britain in tow) has effectively become the world's number one rogue state, ignoring world opinion and its established mechanisms for solving disputes peaceably.
As such it should be temporarily suspended from the Security Council and subjected to sanctions for holding the UN in contempt.
Another country ignoring a 'no' from the UN - whether achieved by majority vote or veto - and taking unilateral action would not be tolerated by the US, particularly in relation to Israel (on behalf of whom it has vetoed 30 UN resolutions). And the UN should not tolerate such an action by the US and Britain.
