You say that like it’s a bad thing.
I can support Bush’s stance if the U.N. can’t justify it’s existence.
My (perhaps half-baked) take on this.
If Bush wants to use force against Iraq, as apparently he does, he has to choose between
(a) acting unilaterally, and justifying this by saying that the US has a unilateral right to resort to force in “pre-emptive self defence”.
(b) acting on foot of UN Security Council authority, granted either to enforce existing Security Council resolutions or by way of collective pre-emptive self defence or both.
Advantage of option (a): It maximises the freedom of manouevre of the US, and sets a precedent which should maximise its freedom of manouevre in the future.
Disadvantages of option (a): The US may not need international support, but they would like it. Option (a) is less likely to attract international support or acceptance. Also, if the US has a unilateral right to resort to force in pre-emptive self defence, so does everyone else (including, alarmingly, Iraq). This is an obviously destablising principle, and as the US has an interest in the maintenance of a stable international community is is not in the interests of the US to take steps which tend to destabilise it.
Advantages of option (b): Military action is more likely to find international support or acceptance.
Disadvantages of option (b): The big one is that Bush might seek but not get Security Council authority for military action. That doesn’t stop him falling back on the argument that the US has a unilateral right in these circumstances, but it would be a much weaker position. Moreover the “unilateral right” argument becomes even more destabilising if it has to be phrased as “every nation has a unilateral right to resort to force in pre-emptive self defence even if it has already sought and been refused authority by the Security Council to resort to force.” Another disadvantage is the the political objectives of military action will have to be limited. The Security Council absolutely will not authorise military action, the stated objective of which is to bring about a regime change in Iraq. The objective will have to be to secure compliance with existing or new Security Council resolutions or with treaty obligations. (Of course, a regime change might result anyway.)
A while ago it looked as if Bush was going with option (a). Recent developments suggest he may go with option (b). If so, he is taking a risk. Should he succeed in getting security council authority, his position is hugely strengthened. Should he fail, it is signficantly weakened. (I mean his diplomatic position, obviously, not his military position.)
Has anything happened to cause this apparent shift in position? I don’t know. It may be that the State Department’s assessment of whether they would succeed in getting Security Council authority has altered. It may be that their assessment of the degree of international support they would get with, and without, Security Council authority has altered. Or it may be that these assessments haven’t altered, but Bush is paying more attention to them. Perhaps Blair is telling him, behind the scenes, that it will be politically impossible for him to deliver UK support unless Security Council authority is obtained. Or something.
Blair and Bush represent 2/5 of the permanent members of the Security Council. If Bush can successfully court one more permanent member out of France, China, and Russia, would it be particularly meaningful? Maybe not, because IIRC, every permanent member of the Security Council has veto power over SC resolutions.
Also, other than veto power, do non-permanent SC members otherwise hold as much sway as permanent SC members?
I suspect we will wind up with option (b). However, there is another conceivable option that combines some advantages of (a) and (b)
© act unilaterally, after having made a good-faith effort to get UN support.
I don’t see that as a third option, december, so much a fall-back position if option (b) doesn’t work. It’s less satisfactory from everybody’s point of view (except, possibly, Iraq’s) than either (a) or (b).
bordelond - to get a Security resolution, Bush needs to secure at leas the abstention of France, China and Russia as well as a majority of the votes actually cast. I think the UK vote is in the bag and that’s certainly a start.
Russia can be bought, perhaps, but it will be close, they have some strong ties to Iraq. A free hand in Georgia and with the Chechens might do it. However, Our Leader has the advantage of being able to peer into Vlad (the Impaler) Putin’s soul. Good chance of squeeking out an abstention. Expect to hear incontrovertible evidence proving Al Queda is in Chechnya quite soon.
Similar with China. Toss them Nepal, and some trade concessions, good chance for positive vote, sure bet for abstention.
Tony “the Poodle” Blair. Got him, body and soul. Yes vote.
France is prickly, stubborn, and unpredictable. Maybe yes, maybe no, who cares, as long as the previous two are nailed in place.
Vote: two yes, maybe one no, two abstention, motion is carried with majority of votes cast, cry havoc, let slip dogs of war.
“Yeeeee-haw, Uncle Dick! I’m a Leader of Men!”
Shit like this makes the Baby Jesus puke His little guts out.
“Actually Bush was careful to say all Security Council resolutions.”
Sorry but Israel has been flouting UN Security Council resolutions for decades.
Specifically UNSC resolution 452 passed in 1979 which asks it to stop building settlements.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un452.htm
What about the non-permanent members of the Security Council?
BTW, non-permanent members of the Security Council as of summer 2001:
Bangladesh, Colombia, Ireland, Jamaica, Mali, Mauritius, Norway, Singapore, Tunisia and Ukraine
The terms are for two years, so I don’t know if there’s been any turnover since.
Point taken, but I’m not sure this is particullarly relevant. The here and now is in issue. Past breeches by any given nation X surely don’t excuse all breeches forever?
Also, is it fair to bring up Israel as if it is a puppet state of the U.S., and that thus the U.S. can be held ultimately accountable for any and all of Israel’s actions?
Good point, CP.
. “Past breeches by any given nation X surely don’t excuse all breeches forever?”
Well it’s not really a “past” breech since Israel is still building those settlements. In any case I am not saying that Israel’s breeches “excuse” Iraq’s but that both breeches need, in different ways , to be taken seriously.
“Also, is it fair to bring up Israel as if it is a puppet state of the U.S., and that thus the U.S. can be held ultimately accountable for any and all of Israel’s actions?”
I think the point is that if Bush is serious about UNSC resolutions he should be doing a whole lot more to get Israel to stop building those settlements. Otherwise he begins to look more than a little hypocritical.
About the speech in general I think it was rather vague and the devil lies in the details. I think it all depends on what kind of resolution is passed in the next few days what kind of deal the Iraqis are offered. I think it is possible to make a deal which ensures robust inspections but will still be acceptable to the Iraqi when they realize that otherwise they will be attacked. I think that will be the best resolution and my guess is it will happen.
If however Bush just wants to use these UN moves as a last-minute way of gathering support for an inevitable war I think it is very foolish.
The bottom line is that the lack of international support is NOT the biggest problem with an invasion aiming at regime change. Even if the whole world was begging the US to invade Iraq it would still be a terrible idea. The main problem with invasion, as I have argued many times, is that it will lead to the spread of bio/chem weapons to various terrorist groups and Iraqi rogue elements with disastrous consequences for long-run US security.
No, CP, way it looks to me the strings run the other way, we dance to thier tune far more than they dance to ours. As to the “fairness” of the perception, well, you may be right. But the perception is near universal, so for all practical purposes, it may as well be the truth.
The premise that the previous mandates/resolutions are “in the past” and “this is now” might be percieved as specious and self-seving. Oddly, that is exactly how I perceive it.
Hell, what of it? If the UN wont play along, he’ll simply go to the Supreme Court. Or the Poughkeepsie City Council.
He simply believes that on the morning of 9/12, he woke up Churchill. You know, how crisis magicaly enobles and elevates men. Now he’s a leader of men. A leader of men will lead his people where they would not go, if it is consistent with his vision. After all, he knows whats best.
And having his weapons engineers build and develop even more chemical and biological weapons.
:rolleyes:
Rent a helicopter? He’s a head of state. His southern border has all sorts of people he’s been persecuting for years, why should we let him near them? He would probably order his bodyguards to get him a few girls to rape for the day.
Why am I not surprised that you really are that ignorant? We “bitch-slap” radar and AA and SAM sites because they target and/or fire on us. That’s engaging in hostilities. He can’t exactly do something about it after those sites get destroyed.
And you apparently believe (foolishly, might I add) that Saddam Hussein is a reformed dictator and everything would be peachy if we just let him be. After all, you know what’s best. :rolleyes:
elucidator, how many threads did you post this in? I thought I was seeing double.
Well, the debate rages in several different threads, all centering around the same ideas. I had the same thing to say. Something wrong with that?
Monster, there is a glimmer of reason and rationality in your post. When I isolate it, I will respond accordingly. Please be patient, as this is an exacting and tiresome procedure.
If the U.N. continues to function in this way will the U.S. find a way to fix the U.N. or will this body continue to “pretend” to be effective?
when is somebody going to put any shread of proof to this claim forward. there has been nothing from either king george the second or phoney blair on this issue, but at the same time halliday and even former inspectors insist that there is absolutely nothing left to bomb in iraq. weapons of mass destructions??? where??? maybe america should be more careful about who they choose to sell these weapons to! just something that has left me baffled
The U.N. is going to vote for what the president wants. And that will make it stronger and more relevant.
The U.N. will vote for ‘coercive’ inspections. And the U.S. will hold them to that, and that will provoke war in Iraq. That’s my feeling as to what’s going to happen.
If for some inexplicable reason the U.N. abdicates, then it’s in trouble. The U.S. will go into Iraq anyway, and will also use the issue to start a debate on ‘reforming’ the U.N. with the threat of pulling out if it doesn’t. It’s the League of Nations all over again.
See, the U.N. was immensely important during the cold war, and it was really structured for that environment. Terrorism and the growth of Non-Governmental threats to world peace is a very different thing, and the U.N. is about to find out how it fits into that world.
But honestly, I think think this thing was in the bag a long time ago. I think the original ‘unilateralist’ stance Bush took was intended to set the stage for a successfull campaign in the U.N. Bush rattled sabers, and caused the U.N. to come out and say that IT was the proper agency for this, and not U.S. unilateralism. As soon as they did that, Bush turned the debate 180% and made it a referendum on the legitimacy of the U.N.
So the U.N. will vote for, at the minimum, coercive inspections. And that gives cover to all the countries that want to support the U.S. but politically couldn’t do it without the U.N. turning it into a world mandate.
This morning the Saudis amazingly said that they WILL allow the U.S. to use Saudi Bases to attack Iraq, as long as the U.N. votes for it. Egypt has said it will support an attack. The other Arab states will line up in a row as well.
I think we’re seeing an absolutely masterful foreign policy coup. When Bush was rattling sabers, the Arab nations could stand up to him and say no. That gave them a popularity boost at home, and political cover. Then Bush throws t he issue into the U.N.'s lap in terms they can’t refuse, and now the Arab states are all saying they’ll support the U.N. So now they can let the U.S. do whatever it wants in the middle east, while convincing their citizens that they stood up to big bad America, but support a world governmental agency that gives them strength and legitimacy.