I watched the United Nations commit suicide yesterday

Great Debates
121

Remembering that this is supposedly a thread about the UN’s self destruction, it seems to me that the Bush administration’s problem is not with the UN generally or even with the Security Council, but specifically with France, Germany and Russia. Germany (I think) lacks a veto, not having been one of the United Nations during WWII, and thus its resistance to a present invasion of Iraq is more embarrassing than critical. France and Russia both have a veto and their opposition is therefore crucial to the building of a coalition under a UN mandate.

Both countries have long pursued a soft policy toward Iraq. You will remember that Russia/the USSR was the primary advocate of a non-settlement resolution of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. In the end Russia is more interested in US support or tolerance for its resolution of its internal problems than it is in its trade ties with Iraq. Assuming Russia can be persuaded to live with an American presence on its southern frontier, Russia can be bought off with US non-interference in its suppression of secessionist nationalities and the guarantee of a share of the spoils of an Iraqi war.

France on the other hand has been handed a challenge that it cannot ignore and which is important enough to it that without a substantial retraction of US rhetoric and reassurance about US ambitions France must take an intractable position. France has ambitions in Europe. It is the same ambitions it has entertained since Charlemagne, that is for more than 1000 years. France hopes to be the dominant nation in Europe. This time the vehicle is not the Grand Army but is the European Union. With Germany weakened politically and in economic trouble France is in a position to dominate the EU and to set up the EU as an economic counterbalance to the US. Up until the Bush administration started talking about the Old Europe and the New Europe and signaled an intention to be included in the European economy if not actually in the EU there was a fair chance that France would in the end go along with a war against Iraq. If going along with the US on Iraq threatens French leadership of the EU, France will dump its combined alliance and rivalry with the US in favor of a rivalry only and pursue a steadfast policy of frustrating US objectives.

Can something be done about France? Of course. Like Russia, France can be bought by assurances that the US will not challenge its claim to leadership of an EU that does not include the US. That may be too high a price for the US to pay, especially if French cooperation and UN sanction is not necessary to achieving US objectives in the Middle East.

Plus it’s always more fun to make fun of the French and call them self absorbed ingrates that to make a genuine effort to deal with French aspirations.

122

Will you grant the same right to other nations, such as the PRC, if it decides to ivade Taiwan as a matter of self-interest?

Okay, how many UN resolutions did US allies violate? What did the US do to rectify the situation?

123

I do not know the degree of cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq. The mere possibility scares the wits out of me. Iraq has the WMDs and al Qaeda has the will to use them against us. E.g., Iraq is believed to have smallpox. A smallpox epidemic could kill millions of Americans before it was controlled and cause incalculable economic harm.

That’s a side issue, anyhow, as far as the Times is concerned. The cited editorial thinks an Iraq-al Qaeda link would just be icing on the cake as jusfitication for moving toward an attack.

124

Precisely, december. So since “even reluctant members of the United Nations Security Council acknowledge” that Baghdad’s refusal to cooperate “could justify military action,” why are you so determined to believe that the UN is a suicide that has outworn its usefulness?

125

Previous quote……. “No one had envisioned Saddam…….still standing………It’s time to finish the task.’’ No contingencies, just a determination to settle the Iraqi issue.

See december’s post above. The US has a launching point in Turkey and airports in the Balkans to get the troops there. You may not like it, but Bush does have a coalition. This tendency that I see on the part of some people to suggest that a coalition without France and Germany is worthless would be a bit more impressive if France and Germany had played a major role in the Gulf War. They didn’t. We don’t need ‘em.

President William J. Clinton; March, 1999:
“As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he represents a threat to the well-being of his people, the peace of the region, and the security of the world.”

Presidential candidate Al Gore; June, 2000:
“The vice president reaffirmed the administration’s strong commitment to the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and to bringing him and his inner circle to justice for their war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

What has changed?

Let’s see…………on the one hand we have a multinational force, led by the US, which invades a sovereign country without sanction from the United Nations.

On the other hand we have a multinational force, led by the US, which invades a sovereign nation which has violated numerous cease-fire agreements and has a history of attacking US aircraft, without sanction from the United Nations.

You’re right, something about this is dishonest.

I’ve already pointed out that Bush was discussing the Iraqi situation during the campaign, now going on three years ago. I’ll now remind you that one of Bush’’ first actions in office, less than thirty days into his term, was the bombing of radar installations outside Baghdad. The Iraqi situation was very much a “front burner” issue from the time Bush took office. It was unquestionably pushed off of the front page because Bush decided to act on Afghanistan first. But let me point out that immediately after 9/11, before operations in Afghanistan had even begun, Bush was made it clear that Iraq was still on the agenda.
But yes, you are right that as more and more time goes by we get closer and closer to our “destination.” I’m not quite sure why you find that significant, though.

Do I really need to point out that the “chief fiend” is now hiding in a cave somewhere and communicating with his followers with a cheap tape-recorder? That seems to me to be an improvement on training them by the hundreds in camps paid for and protected by the government of Afghanistan.

I did. I pointed out that Bush’s determination to deal with the Iraqi situation was evidenced long before the economy tanked, which makes suggestions that this entire affair is simply some “wag-the-dog” scenario look as silly as they are.

Um, yeah…whatever.

126

Ah, more over-the-top generalizations? Great!

While I don’t have any false pretenses of sanctamonious morality I will however “fight ignorance” when I see it. When you post false accusations such as inferring that the US is “the same country that sold Iraq its entire war machine in the first place” somebody is going to call you on it. If you have cites that the US sold Iraq it’s “entire war machine in the first place” then come forth with them. Here is a 74 page Center for Strategic and International Studies cite that points to those countries being primarily the USSR and France, Iraqi Armed Forces on the Edge of War.

If you want to admit your accusation was very poorly worded then I don’t think anyone is going to argue with you. If what you really wanted to do was point out that the US has been implicated with providing Iraq precursors for chemical and biological weapons (which is far from providing Iraq with even THAT “entire war machine” since the Iraqis were somehow gassing the Iranians BEFORE the events you might be referring to) then reworking and severely narrowing the wording of your over-the-top accusation could be a smart move. When you blow up that issue into the US being “the same country that sold Iraq its entire war machine in the first place” you undermine any argument you may have.

127

quote:

I guess if you know your history, you’re intentionally misrepresenting it, then. The UN is substantially unchanged from its founding. The things that have changed are for the most part the perspectives of the member nations. Or parhaps you’d like to specify how the UN was ‘shaped’ by the cold war. Recall in your answer that the UN is a collection of nations, not the monolithic entity you continue to think of it as.

It’s not pedantic to point out where your argument is false and relies on imaginary associations.

So, in other words, you won’t address the problem that a UN with an ‘appropriate’ veto-wielding body would behave much as the current one does. If you can’t, then your whole argument against the UN disappears. Thanks for pointing out that Germany also should be a member… helps make my point that the security council ain’t the problem.

Why would the UK have the veto?

I think you have free trade confused with an essential element of democracy.

I’m really, honestly, confused about how you think international discourse works. YOU don’t set the agenda, and neither does the US. Suppose the body you envision exists. How can you expect that it would be used for change? No change could be agreed upon (with the possible exception of more free trade and democracy, but I doubt it). All nations and all poltical leaders are entirely invested in the status quo. For instance, why would this new body be in favor of war against Iraq? You make a good argument that many members you put on the council would not support it. If they aren’t convinced about terrorism now, why would they be in your fantasy?

[quote]

Have a review mechanism by which countries can be kicked out for not upholding the principles of democracy and freedom.
[\quote]

Sure. That’ll work great! Not. Don’t be obtuse. Who get’s to serve on that committee?

Define what you mean by ‘influence’ and which countries in particular you have in mind.

How about a link to your cold war chronology? I’d love to see it.

128

I hate to point out the obvious, but if I take you at your word here, that the UN really doesn’t want the help of the US, then I have to conclude that december is right and the UN is nothing more than a façade; happy to spew out edicts which it can not or will not attempt to enforce and play at diplomacy in a world where it actually has little or no influence.

After all, on the few occasions where the UN has actually called for the use of a little muscle, which is the only country to actually step forward and show a willingness to take the necessary steps to enforce the UN’s will? I don’t mean to denigrate the contributions of other nations, but Sweden sure didn’t drive the North Koreans out of South Korea. And Sweden wasn’t a lot of help when Saddam had to be forced out of Kuwait. And I imagine that if we relied on Sweden then the duly elected president of Haiti would still be in exile. Remember that when the UN authorized the use of force in Haiti their next action was to boldly sit around on their hands and wait for the US to actually do something.

Now I realize that those are “cheap shots.” But the point stands; without the US the UN is just another useless League of Nations. And if you believe that they could, perhaps, get by using only sanctions then ask yourself this; how effective would any sanctions be without the co-operation of the US?

But overall, I believe that you’ve missed the entire point of december’s OP. The argument isn’t that the UN is “dead” because it won’t do what the US wants, the argument is that the UN is “dead” because it won’t do what it takes to enforce it’s own resolutions. You argue that the UN is “alive and well” because they have stopped, or at least delayed, the US attack. But let’s face it, if they have delayed the US it’s only due to US magnanimity. I mean, even if the UN were to actually vote that the US must not attack Iraq, and the US attacked Iraq anyway, what would the UN do about it? The answer is that they would probably do very little.

My only complaint with the OP is that it’s really an old argument. People have been complaining since it’s founding that the UN is useless because it lacked the ability to “enforce.” But given that I disagree with the UN about half the time I’m not sure that I consider that to be such a bad thing.

129

Zigaretten, I know you were aiming at Spavined Gelding up there, but couldn’t miss the fact that you seem to have been quite discerning in the factual items you chose to include in your argument. You state that there is a “coalition,” and base this on december’s (wisely) undefended comments at the top of the page; however, as I pointed out a little further down, this is “stretching” the truth, to put it kindly. Regardless of whether France and Germany join (and you might want to re-check your history on just what they, the Japanese, and the Arab coalition provided the last time around)*, a coalition should really be of willing partners who have something to contribute: since none of the Arab country’s have officially supported us, Italy is considering backing out due to the surprising size of the peace demonstrations, Spain is in the same fix as Italy, Turkey (which has given no “official” support) can do no more than provide basing support (and possibly “defensive” troops if the Kurd issue is not handled to their liking), Japan is asking for a UN resolution, and the rest of the countries listed can provide nothing more than “moral” support, just where is this coalition? Unfortunately for your argument, there is no coalition, only a bilateral support between the UK and the US. Australia has offered 2,000 troops; since the US will be amassing somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000, the 1% offered by the Aussies kind of fits in there with the Albanians and the Latvians, don’t you think?

In your comments on the difference between the US-led attacks in the Balkans vs the current desire for an invasion of Iraq: you list the “violations of numerous cease-fire agreements” and the “history of attacking US aircraft, without sanction from the United Nations.” For the first part: there was one cease-fire, UNSCR 687; it was to stop the hostilities between the UN-mandated, US-led coalition and Iraq. Those hostilities ended; Iraq did not attack coalition forces or Kuwait after that cease-fire. However, you then bring up the next bit, which I assume is your basis for the first assertion; however, the “US aircraft” you mention were actually flying over Iraq “without sanction from the United Nations,” therefore any attacks by the Iraqis on said aircraft would have been, by definition, “without sanction” as well. A point the Iraqis have made, without the UN or the US paying much attention, has been that the resolutions that pertain to Iraq all include the clause “affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq…”**; at least two “Member States” have been violating these resolutions for quite some time.

If you look at the statistics, there is really nothing to indicate that the Bush administration did anything different from the Clinton administration regarding Iraq, at least up until 9/11/01 (with an exception beginning in August 2001, and lasting until November of that year); a break out of the bombing patterns in the no-fly zones shows no discernable increase or decrease in 2001 from 2000, except in the time mentioned. Being stationed in the Gulf permanently since 97, I can also say that there was absolutely no increase in readiness on our part from 97 until 9/11/01; in October 01, we ramped up for the Afghan campaign, and that then changed in September 02. I don’t think your comment regarding Iraq being a “front burner” issue is founded in the least; from a military standpoint (and that includes the preparatory side), it didn’t really start to become a focus at all until late 2002.

And ObL has used tape recorders in the past, before 9/11; true, his camps were destroyed in the Afghan conflict, but not even the CIA consider him to be down and out at this stage. In a regular war, dispersion of the enemy is an effective goal; against guerillas and terrorists, however, it just makes them that much harder to find. Since the Afghan campaign started, terrorist attacks by ObL’s cells have continued; if he is still capable of being active, then we can’t say we have been all that succesful. At least before we knew where he was…

*Your incorrect assumptions on the role of the French and Germans in Desert Storm: if you take the time to read the three chapters presented here, you will see that they both contributed quite a bit of forces and material (many GI’s remember eating French MRE’s, BTW), at least as much as the UK (both the Brits and the French provided full armored divisions, as well as combat and support troops and aircraft). The 6th French Light Armoured Division fought alongside the 101st and the 82nd in the spearhead; they were the first to jump off when the ground phase started. In addition, the Arab Coalition forces provided 2 full task forces; the Japanese spent untold millions for rear-echelon support (we still use the LandCruisers they sent by the boat load to support the coalition forces). If you read through the account, you see that the coalition provided a lot of support that we won’t have this time around…http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/Gulf/

**UNSCR 687

Greco

130

Because Friday’s ugly debate made it look like the Security Council as an entity will never actually authorize military action.

131

“France and Germany have been calling all their friends telling them that they are gay, and in love.” -Saturday Night Live

132

By the way, the claim that Sadaam murdered his own people, is like saying the native americans were Andrew Jackson’s own people. Time to hit the books folks.

133

zigarren:

To clarify, my response was directed specifically towards this insufferably self-righteous and arrogant argument, posted by december:

*Oy, here, America. Let me help you down off that cross.

As far as Sweden goes, its historical record is not the best, but that wasn’t the focus of the discussion, as far as I can tell. (In case you’re interested, they sent a field hospital to the Gulf War.) Of course the US has an important role to play in world affairs, and as I have myself argued in other threads, there are even good arguments for going to war against Hussein. But if, as december seems to think, the US feels “forced” into playing world policeman, even against the majority opinion of the world, well, then, like I said: please, don’t go to any trouble for us.

These debates polarize opinion, and I find myself posting in anger as well, writing stuff I might not have written if I weren’t so provoked. But sweet Jesus, in another thread the man just accused not only me, but even my wife (who is also against current US policies, and whom he has never met) of anti-Semitism and fascist apologetics just because we disagree with him.

Finally, with regard to the UN’s enforcement of its own resolutions, we have a decade-long economic blockade, and a rigorous inspections regime, which must constitute some form of enforcement, even in your eyes. No? How to further reinforce the resolutions, and the question of whether or not Iraq’s infractions warrant war, is a more complex question, one which, as december himself stated earlier, even reasonable people can disagree upon. And yet, at the same time, he wishes to rule out the forum for such a dispute as irrelevant, and accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being anti-Semites.

I leave it to you to figure out how he squares these two contradictory positions.

greco:

Thanks again for the factual input and the links!

134

Mr Svinlesha: when would you agree with the use of force to overthrow the Iraqi government?

135

erl:

The short answer is: when mandated by the UN Security Council.

Or, of course, in the event that Iraq attacked US territory, and the US was forced to defend itself; in that case, the US would even be justified in a unilateral response, as stipulated by the UN Charter.

136

Perhaps you misunderstand. When should the UNSC find it a good time to use force to use physical force to overthrow the Iraqi government? I highly, highly doubt you are a man of such opinion right up to the point where you say, “Eh, whatever the UNSC says is good enough for me.” I’d bet those opinions carry right on through that. :slight_smile:

137

You do have a tendency to be a little more than selective with your choice of facts, friend. If you can’t see a difference between the NATO operation in the Balkans and the operation now contemplated in Iraq, then no argument or my part is going to change your particular world view. At least the White House has the good sense not to try to equate the two.

And where is this grand coalition. As far as I can tell it’s the US, the UK, a brigade of Aussies, and some stragglers from insignificant nations with an interest in kissing up to the US. Where are the Saudis? Where are the French armored brigades? Where are the German field hospitals? Where is the Arab and Japanese money? There is no coalition. You can call it a coalition all you want but it certainly is not that.

If you have information that Osama is hiding in a cave some place I’m sure that it is something that the government would like to know about. Other wise we must think that you have no more information than we do and that your judgment is no more than speculation informed by wishful thinking. What we do know is that Osama is still alive and kicking somewhere and that our President seems to have shifted the first priority for running him down to taking on an opponent who can be blown up on CNN live for the entertainment of the electorate.

Balderdash, pure and simple. The President may well have talked about Iraq during the campaign–but it was always in the context of if Saddam develops weapons of mass destruction we will put together another coalition and nail his hide to the barn door. Be that as it may, we didn’t hear any more until the “Axis of Evil” speech and there was certainly no serious motion toward hostilities until the onset of the midterm elections campaigns. It seems to me that there is a Wag the Dog here but the tail is not the economy but rather is the 2004 presidential election. None of us can be so besotted with admiration of the President or so naive as to think that the 2004 election is not a factor in all this.

None of this, of course has much to do with the central issue–the role, if any, of the UN in this. I repeat my prior assertion, it is time to stroke France and murmur soothing words in Madeline"s shell shaped ear.

138

Only time will tell. OTOH, depending what unfolds, it’s just possible that military action in Iraq will not be necessary to securing a safer and more peaceful world.

In either case, I don’t see how you can conclude that the Security Council is institutionally moribund, and the UN a corpse, simply because you don’t like part of the debate that took place. It is in the nature of a cooperative and democratically organized body to sometimes give rise to difference of opinion, and that can only be seen as a sign of de facto moribundness by someone who values neither cooperation nor democracy.

139

erl:

Alas, I fear you misjudge me. But perhaps I need to be clearer.

As I see it, there are two interrelated questions here: that of legitimate vs. illegitimate use of force, and that of justifiable vs. unjustifiable use of force. I don’t know if I can explain what I mean by this, but I’ll try.

The US is a signatory of the UN Charter, and the US state is therefor honor-bound to uphold the principles expressed within that Charter. Chapter I, Article 2 spells out these principles. Among them are the following:

[QUOTE]
[ul][li] The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. [/li][li] All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.[/li]
[li] All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
I read these principles as expressly forbidding a state to engage in unilateral military action. This means that if the US attacks Iraq unilaterally, without the permission of the Security Council, it is in dishonorable violation of its international treaty obligations. That makes those actions illegitimate. In fact, it was Iraq’s violation of this fundamental principle, when it invaded Kuwait, that provided the pretext for the Gulf War. Those who advocate US action now, without UN approval, are essentially arguing that the US should act in precisely the same manner as Iraq, whom we once condemned for its blatant disregard for the standards of international law. Ah, the smell of hypocrisy in the morning….

There are particulars to the rules governing the use of force in the Charter. Chapter VII of the Charter deals specifically with “threats to peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression;” this is the chapter that supposedly regulates, as it were, the use of military force by states. There it stipulates:

[QUOTE]
[ul][li] The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.[/li]
[li]Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.[/li]
[li]Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
These articles, as I understand them, reserve the right to apply military force in international relations exclusively to the Security Council, except in the case of “an armed attack” against a state. To be short, then, if the UNSC condones the use of military force, then that use is legitimate.

There is a chance, although it is relatively small, that I might disagree with a UNSC resolution authorizing force for collective self-defense of UN member states. That would occur if I thought such force was unjustifiable. There are various absurd scenarios I could think of that might fit that bill, but most seem unlikely to me.

Let me put it this way: if the Security Council had authorized the use of force against Iraq, I doubt I would have been out in the streets yesterday, with my lovely non-anti-Semitic wife and my beautiful, anti-fascist son, protesting US actions. I don’t have much over for Saddam, and had there been an anti-Saddam rally the same day, I could just as easily have participated in that as well, since I don’t see the two positions as mutually exclusive. I’m not sure if Hussein has done enough bad stuff to warrant being removed by an international coalition, considering some of the shit other nations pull; but he’s so close that I doubt I would bother to split hairs over it.

But from my perspective, it seems clear that US policies are not based on a concern for human rights, but are actually crass, imperial politics dressed up in fine clothing. And calling for, or supporting, unilateral US action is the equivalent of breaking our treaty agreements, however disagreeable those agreements may seem in some quarters.

Does that answer your question?

140

I don’t think I misunderstand. Perhaps this will help: you are now a member of the UNSC. What needs to be the case for you to agree to force etc? Forget your impression of US politics. You have a vote to cast… when will that vote be, “go get them”? Obviously the UNSC cannot rely on the UNSC’s opinion to form one, that’s a null-starter :wink: