The UN won't lift the sanctions on Iraq?

Remove all ads!

It clearly is about the other permanent members pressing on letting the UN back in. Chirac made that crystal clear in his press statement :

... (this can't be decided by the US alone as it requires the votes of all permanent members) ... the part he doesn't say is the most important one. The message from france and russia is clear: Unilateralism doesn't work.

 

Ragusa,

It seems to me that the if the actions of the coalition are to be defined as a unilateralist (the US has support from many nations, quite a few of which are European), then the actions of Russia and France would have to fall under the same definition. Before you make the argument that what France and Russia are doing is done within the framework of international law, I would ask you what right do Russia and France have to unilaterally interpret and enforce such laws? They are threatening not to let it come to a vote. No one else gets a say in this issue, or for that matter, had a say in the issue of liberating Iraq, just because the Russians and French say so? The nations with veto power get to speak unilaterally for the entire UN body? France and Russia (or the US, UK or China) get to enforce said laws all by themselves?

That is one of the reasons why I say that the UN is broken. The US and the UK proved it by "unilaterally" attacking Iraq against the will of the UN with no repercussions. The stance of the UN was made "unilaterally" by the French and Russians, thus confirming what the US and UK have already proven.

If preventing unilateralist action is one of the goals of the UN, I believe that your statement supports my belief that the UN was fatally flawed from inception. But then that is the US’s fault too I suppose.

 

Darkwolf,
the other permanent members aren't willing to hand total control over middle east policy to the US. That's the reason for the current situation. The US have, by themselves decided to go to war against iraq. This decision, mainly influenced by Cheney and Rumsfeld, was iirc made in september 2001, when Bush signed an executive order for the war in afganistan. It included in a then-secret second part the order to work out plans for a war against iraq (that became known publicly in january 2002).

The UK, driven by the desire to prevent the US from acting on their own, were probably played for a sucker in their attempts to handle the conflict via UN, as the US decision was made already: War on iraq, with or without UN. As Perle said :

That implies that the decision was made already, and that the UN and the UK were only consulted to get a better standing. And at that time no one had joined the US in their plan. If the decision over war with iraq was made in washington, long before international consulting on iraq began, if that's not unilateral, what then?

As for the "coalition of the willing", you remember Yago's post on it? A nice quote first:

It included:

• Australia, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom

And now the fun begins

• Afghanistan, South Korea, Albania, Colombia, Philippines, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Uzbekistan, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nicaragua

Well, except for the UK there aren't the other "big boys" from the security council included. The US acted without the UN, on their own, unilateral - insofar as they tried to override the security council. The remark from Defencelink is misleading as it tries to mask that fact that by naming a couple of countries.

One might notice that a substantial number of these countries are heavily dependent on US military support (South-Korea, Japan), financial aid (the whole lower part of that list) or had to pay back a thank-debth as a result of a US favour - like the acceptance in NATO (east european countries). And, of course, there have been rumours about bribery Amusingly the supporters include afganistan, a country, recently occupied ... err ... freed, that has a president who, without foreign aid, can't even control his own capitol. IIRC Slovenia got eroneously listed either, which additionally hinted on that it was a determined and well planned diplomatic approach and not a ... panic reaction for PR only

Right

Unfortunately the number is totally irrelevant as the only number of interest here were the 9 supporters (among them the 5 permanent members) the US would have had to convince in the security council. And again, the decision for war was made in washington. The whole "coalition of the willing" stuff is a classic example of blowing fog.

As someone else said: The coalition of the willing was a joke, but serious for the iraqis.

[ April 23, 2003, 21:13: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa,

Your entire post is nothing but spin. You never once address the main point of my post, that the UN is a body of unilateralism by its very structure.

I give you credit, like a good paladin, you used your shield to redirect the attack without taking the brunt of the force. Unfortunately, in a discussion such as this, it can back fire when it is recongnized as a re-direction of the topic, rather than a responce.

 

The now "liberated" people of Iraq should not suffer (economically or otherwise) because of a misguided maniacal dictator. also as far as the U.N. goes, let it crumble. it's nothing but a poor imitation of the League of Nations that was created by Hailie Selassie I. after the "league" reformed into the U.N. they shunned the aformentioned emperor and left him to deal with the Nazi Italian invaision of my homeland. much to the surprise of the U.N. Ethiopian horsemen armed with spears and arrows drove off the facist bastards with very little loss of life for either side. look it up. so poop on the U.N.

 

The security council and it's origins. One of my favourite topics.

The system is simple: Realpolitik and Balance of Power.

I begin in the 19th century. Important Developpers: Metternich and Bismarck.

Balance of Power is needed to stop an enemy who is stronger than you. Examples in history for Balance of Power:

France under Napoleon

To stop France: The holy alliance: Prussia, Austria, UK, Russia

Security alliance for the new founded Germany 1871-1890

To stop France: Germany, UK, Russia (Ever noticed that the German Emperor, The Tsar of Russia and the King of Great Britain were cousins ?)

WW1

Germany and Austria-Hungary

To stop them: Russia, France, UK

WW2

Germany

To stop it: Russia, UK (and a little bit USA. Hey, they met the Germans only in the 5th year of the war)

So underlying idea: To stop a big power from occupying the others, alliances have to be made BEFORe that happens.

-> Security Council. Idea: Including all the important powers, so they can stop eachother, before they go to far. And a war may be avoided (good Idea for the cold war )

They article that Laches posted in the "An American Opinons Thread" has some good hints concerning the Balance of Powers and the Security Council and it's composition.

So: 1945: Powers that have to be included to follow this goal: UK, France, USA, Russia, China, India.

China and India -> They're going to be the important superpowers of the future. Problems: India was at that time British colony. So how put it in the Security Council ?

2003: Security Council: Problem is, the members don't reflect true power

Russia: No comment. There situation is bad in the moment.

France, UK: Should both not be in. Ideally, there would be a seat for the EU. Problem: The EU is statistically a Superpower, but isn't united. So common foreign policiy is (at the moment at least) not possible.

China: Sleeping Dragon

USA: Needs no comment.

India: Biggest problem. Is not in, but is like China a sleeping dragon. Just a bit (huge bit ?) behind China.

So obvious problem: The USA can do what it likes.

BUT: Problem for the USA: Imperial overstretch. The height of American power has been exceeded. (The Laches thread first post gives interesting clues to that fact).

On the other hand, the European (and the Japanese, South Korean I presume) Ego is quite big. Bigger than ever before. (At least, so is mine). The French and Germans know, that theoretical, the EU (even more so together with Japan and South Korea) the can stop the Americans or at least damage them severly. IF there would be a political will. Or as Kissinger sarcastically commented:"Has Europe a phonenumber ?"

Now, the last part is not humbug, it actually happened once. The Helms/Burton-Law concerning trade with Cuba and other Nations. It passed the congress, but the president (Clinton, Bush Jr.) did not dare to sign it, because a great number of countries (Including EU, Japan, Mexico, Canada) threated with retaliation should this Law be signed.

Hu, my rant has ended.

No, I guess that wasn't a surprise at all. But anyway, Italy is a. part of the coalition of the willing b. has vowed in it's capitulation, that it will give stolen artefacts back to ethopia. Now, Prime Minister Berlusconi, asked if he would, after more than 50 years, consider to give those artefacts back, said bluntly:"no".

[ April 24, 2003, 01:18: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Good work Yago. It must also be reminded that the UN represents in the situation of powers in 1945 : Permanent members were the five victors of WW-II - US, france, UK, russia ... and China. The two "enemy states" of Art. 53 of the UN Charter (Chapter VIII) are no one else but germany and japan.

After all, this is a major flaw of the UN. But on the other hand: In situations like civil wars in africa and other remote places where the rest of the world gives a ****, the UN cares for the people who would otherwise be forgotten.

Of course the UN need a reform. Globalisation of problems and conflict has to be dealt with by global politics. That's what Boutros Boutros-Ghali wanted. That scared the US off, who saw him endangering their privileged status, as he wanted to strengthen the UN, give her more influence worldwide. They consequently torpedoed him, a step that resulted in Kofi Annan becoming secretary-general who was deemed to be more pro-US.

But, weird, weird, the employees of international organisations tend to identify with their jobs and tasks, putting aside national interests. That can be observed in europe when watching the european commission. This is the great potential of the UN - and what some countries fear most - the strength of an idea.

The US like the weaknesses of the UN, as the little episode with Perle showed clear enough. They exploit it. When the UN disagrees it is criticised as weak and insufficient. When the UN backs US action it is good and glorious, successful especially. The US postition towards the UN is atavistic, as the US still think they could handle the world on their own. They can't.

The UN can only be as efficient as the permanent members want it to be. Together. With full support of the five and of conflict parties the UN has been quite successful, just think about her great contribution to international law.

No country can survive on its own. Have you ever considered what an amount of diplomacy the US had to do wouldn't the UN bundle a good percentage of it?