The letter "The real reason for war on Iraq is still a mystery" (March 21) unintentionally makes a strong argument against the U.N. as an agency for international security.

The author states that "... Europe is held responsible for diplomatic failure when Bush has repeated for months that, screw diplomacy, he would go alone." The U.N. Security Council -- most notably France, China and Russia -- made it clear that it would not support military action in Iraq, even though it supported resolution 1441 which announced Iraq's last chance to disarm (or face consequences). France, China and Russia's overtly obstructionist behavior, motivated by political and national interests, hardly served to facilitate the diplomacy Bush "failed" to exercise in the debate leading to war.

Interestingly, I don't recall France, Russia and China seeking U.N. permission for their respective military actions in the Ivory Coast, Chechnya and Tibet. How many innocent people suffered during those campaigns? And yet, these nations express profound "concern" for the innocents they speculate will suffer during and after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Further, I find it laughable that the U.N. is condemning U.S. unilateral action in Iraq while at the same time quietly pushing for U.S. unilateral engagement with North Korea. To quote Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, "The hypocrisy is astonishing." Indeed, France, China and Russia are, as Krauthammer writes, "... cynical, resentful, ex-imperial powers ... serving their own national interests." U.S. diplomacy didn't fail; rather, the U.N. Security Council failed.