The US needs UN approval to attack Saddam? um, right...

Remove all ads!

Seems to be a lot talk about how the world will split apart if international law isn't adhered to by all nations equally and fairly. Well here is a little factoid for all of you who think that American is the big bad bully who wants to pick a fight without UN approval.

Since the foundation of the UN, there have been 26 military conflicts involving UN members. Of those, only 3 have received support from the UN. Those 3 are Afghanistan, Desert Storm, and the Korean War. Russia, China, and France have all initiated military conflicts in that time frame, none of which were approved by the UN.

Yet again them members of the UN want to hold the US to a higher standard than they have held themselves to. But then that is the theme and goal of the UN anyway, so why does it surprise me?

 

But if they ARE the world police then they SHALL follow the rules. Good example y'know.

 

But the main opposition to the war is from the cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys themselves (AKA France ), who are really quite anti-Americain anyway. France is losing her original allies in this debate anyway, ie the smaller European countries, because they don't want to be pushed around by Chirac. Ultimately, war with Iraq is question not of if but of when...

 

The reason the attack on Iraq is considered to require UN approval is that, ostensibly, the motive for the attack is Iraq's failure to live up to the terms of its agreement with the UN. An analogy: a battered wife may be able to get away with a "self-defense" plea if she kills her husband in his sleep, but if a neighbour does it, no matter how pleased you might be to see the husband dead, he must be regarded as a criminal. In this case, the US is the neighbour.

The other point is that a UN-led attack on Iraq is not nearly as likely to provoke repercussions against American citizens as a US-led attack will be. Although the US has made it so clear that they *are* leading this charge, whether their soldiers end up wearing baby-blue berets or not, that it's a moot point at this point anyway.

- Sprite, with a big mouthful of yummy brie. Oook!

 

Isn't still a little odd that the US is the only country out of those 4 that have every even asked for permission?

Also, according to the UN hardliners, no UN member may attack another nation without the UN's endorsement. I believe it even states that in the UN Charter. If Ragusa reads this I am sure he (or she, I really don't know, sorry!) can confirm or refute that.

France does make good cheese, but my tastes run more toward a nice smokey cheddar. Might be a reflection on my personality.

 

He. Anyway, no UN member is allowed to attack another, under no circumstances. A country may be justified to use force at best.

When attacked it is allowed to strike back after Art.51 UN-Charter, that may, yet not necessarily, even include a preemptive strike when attack is imminent (as Israel did in the 6-day war), that again requires justification. That is the right for self-defense.

The case with Iraq is different, yet very clear and regulated in chapter VII of the charter: After Art.39 the UN security council has to decide if the situation in Iraq is deemed to be a danger to international safety.

If so the council can decide measures like sending out "blue helmets" in ceasefire situations (Art.40), embargoes or perhaps inspections aka measures short of force (Art.41) or measures of force (Art.42).

The decisionmaking process in the security council is described in Art.27. A decision after Art.39 is one after Art.27 II and requires 9 votes, including all 5 permanent members. There is no such thing as a veto right, yet not agreeing has about the same effect .... which is often misunderstood.

The US are pressing the UN to take action against Iraq. They have pressed, to my understanding, for a resolution that allows use of force by the UN, of course led by the US. Saying they asked for allowance to attack Iraq is misleading. Even though, again, the result would basically be the same, the very reason behind is very different.

(All articles are of those of the UN Charter )

 

Not so Ragusa,

They do actually have to vote against. Abstentions will only preclude the resolution passing if the total affirmative votes is less than nine from the total of fifteen. I just read the wording of Article 27, but according to both the UN guide (I was there last week), and this BBC quick guide all of the five do not have to vote for a resolution, they must just not vote against.

From what I can recall of the cold war, this was in fact the case, as the battle was invariably to get either the US or Russia to abstain if the other wanted a resolution passed.

 

You should have read the charter instead of the BBC article , Art.27 III UN-Charter, even more as it was only two clicks away .... press always oversimplifies

True, against the votes of all permanent members nothing can be decided. But only the five can't decide anything as well. There are still 4 more votes necessary for a decision. Seen that way the remaining 9 non-permanent members would have a veto too, collectively of course ... and everyone would end up having a veto of some kind .... as I said, the term veto is misleading, only pointing out the special status of the permanent members.

[ March 11, 2003, 19:53: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I look at the whole thing a little more simplistic.

Why don't we just roll in, and take out Saddam and Castro and all the other leaders we don't like?

Because that right there gives them justification to go after ours. It's like the whole "quid pro quo" thing. We'd go through a president every month, and before long, no one wants the job.

It's like, MAD. But with leaders.Mutually Assured Assassination is Stupid. MAAS?

So, just rolling into Iraq gives North Korea a precident for rolling into South Korea and Japan. Yeah, yeah; I know they've not done anything. But it just provides some ammunition for the tree huggers that like to debate. They really don't care about the issue; they just like the debate. And that gives enough time, while they're debating, for the whole thing to blow over and just be accepted by the whole world.

Anyways, if we roll in there and we don't come out with anything, then we have to justify it to the rest of the world. Say (I don't believe this, but it *could* happen) that Saddam doesn't ship any missiles over to Israel. And we utterly crush them, and can't seem to find anything like nurve gas or mus-tard or any of the other high dollar toys. Everyone says we were just like Japan and Germany in WW2; needed a little breathing room. And then you've got the UN imposing sanctions on the US, and they whole thing starts over again.

The US (and Britian as well; SAS and SBS guys want to play just as much as all our guys do) will roll in. We're just letting the situation escalate. Get some real good tension in there, so we make sure he feels nice and threatened, and gets all his toys up and ready.

 

But Ragusa, as I said, I did read Article 27.

Here is the UN's own guide to the UN security council vote There is even an example of a resolution that was passed by ten votes to nil - China, France and Russia were amongst the countries that abstained but the resolution passed.

To veto a resolution one or more of the permanent members must vote against. Abstentions only stop a resolution if it makes the vote less than the required nine.

Concurring in Article 27 does not mean affirmative, it means not negative.