Blair especially is spinning that the french veto would be innapropriate use, and therefore to be ignored - I was interested to look up US vetoes in the past http://www.coreyturner.com/usa-unveto.asp
Ignoring the israeli vetos for the moment (even though there seem to be some reasonable ones there) there are some real eye openers
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction
what is going on here? How could the US condemn these motions and then attack Iraq for doing the same.
erislover, I think that last question in the OP was a Freudian slip. The question raised is, judging by the context, “why would France’s veto be considered inappropriate where the earlier US vetoes were not?”
Erm…because the US legally has veto power in the Security Council? I don’t see where the contradiction is.
I’m not even sure that list is accurate. For instance, it includes the resolution setting up the International Criminal Court, which is a General Assembly resolution. The US has veto power in the SC only, not the GA. In truth, GA resolutions are not even considered binding by the UN - the ICC resolution is merely a suggestion, as the ICC derives its real power from the treaty which actually sets it up, and countries individually sign on to.
I am arguing a moral case here. OK the US can do what it wants, but if it wants to convince the world of its altruism then we must looks at its past record (just as we look at Saddams)
Its past record is to try and stop any control on nuclear or chemical weapons or other WOMD as well as stop any number of generally moral stances (e.g. against apartheid). I agree that the motions are non-binding etc without formal treaties - so why did the US cast it veto so often? What is it trying to say?
Pretty much any motion to do anything can be summarized in a nice-sounding statement - how could you possibly oppose the Defense Of Marriage Act (explicitly defines marriage as not including gays? or the United States Soverignity Protection Act (pretty much pulls the US out of the UN and removes all privlidges for UN delegates)?
Since the page you cite doesn’t mention the exact UN motion identifier or provide a link to it (the links go to a page which goes to a page which has similar summaries), they’re all pretty suspect, especially since several of them seem to be GA motions, where the US has no veto. Even if they are SC motions that the US vetoed, there’s probably something specific in the full text which the US objects to that doesn’t show up in one biased observer’s summary.
I really dont believe that the UN is outdated and irrelevant because certain nations have veto powers and have chosen to use them. That is not the issue.
The issue is how many broken resolutions does it take before “dire consequences” are taken? Will the UN just allow Iraq to break resolution upon resolution upon resolution and keep on making resolutions for Iraq to break for an undefinite amount of time? How relevant is this organization to demand that a nation conform to international law and not have the guts, the willingnesss and the decisiveness to act when its demands are not met?
Saen’s cite also has this page, Subjects of UN Security Council Vetoes, which lists all the Security Council vetoes. It seems to me that the OP’s list bears absolutely no relation to the actual use of vetoes.
The really ironic thing is that it was the US that insisted in 1945 that it have veto power over UN actions. This goes back to the fight over the League of Nations after WWI, when Henry Cabot Lodge and others in the Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles because of the language of Article X (the League of Nations). They were worried that the League could order its member nations to supply troops to prevent or stop a war. Congress objected that only they had the right to order American troops into war, through their power to declare war. That is why FDR got veto power over UN actions: to prevent the same argument again after WWII. Now it looks like this same veto power is being used to prevent US troops from being sent off to a foreign war, except it isn’t the US threatening the veto, it is the other members of the Security Council. Now if that isn’t ironic, I don’t know what is!
I don’t know that you can say that the US helped make the veto outdated and irrelevant, I think it would be more accurate to say that time and the changing conditions of the world have made the system outdated. Even if they did, that acknowledgment does not help solve the problem. When a million Rwandans are murdered and the UN can’t even agree that is wrong, there is undoubtledly a problem.
Part of the problem with any world organization is that the most powerful countries in the world have different interests and perspectives than weaker countries. If you want to be brutally honest about it, the more powerful countries can veto actions because no one could by use of force make them do what they did not want to do. For the weak, the Security Council gives power. The powerful, however, cannot gain power from the SC, they can only cede that power. There is no logical reason to ever surrender one’s judgment to a body with competing interests when you don’t really need that body to accomplish your goals. Why would the US want to cede its judgment in matters regarding human rights to a country who does things like this ?
Part of the absurdity of the current system is that the Security Council does not accurately reflect the powerful nations of the world. The presence of the weak or the absence of the powerful skews the system.
“There is no logical reason to ever surrender one’s judgment to a body with competing interests when you don’t really need that body to accomplish your goals.”
The current structure of the UN Security Council is indeed dated, but let’s test the assumptions of the above axiom. First, what exactly are the “competing interests” of the UN Security Council as a body? The point of the Security Council is to improve world peace and stability by peaceable means. In what sense does that goal compete with the interests of the individual nations that compose its membership? Second, who says that you don’t really need this body to accomplish your goals? Who’s the you there? Let’s say it’s the US. Can the US achieve world peace and stability on its own? Actually, it absolutely cannot; nor does it even have the will to try.
Also, in what way is the US even asked to “cede its judgment” in human rights, or anything else for that matter, to any country on the Security Council? Do you see democracy a process of ceding judgment? Or is it rather a peacable means of attempting to reach consensus as to judgment in a world in which no single country’s judgment can stand for all? You speak as though there were some kind of tyranny of the weak on the Security Council, and yet you know that is not the case. (Especially when the US is now on view, bullying and bribing member nations to the full extent of its powers.) In fact the weak and the strong on the Security Council and off of it–both relatively strong countries such as China, Russia and France, and relatively weak countries such as Pakistan or Mexico–are alike in feeling very uncomfortable with the otherwise unchecked dominance and increasing aggressiveness of the strongest nation, the United States.
Nor can the requirement that the world’s only superpower operate within the framework of some kind of international consensus be understood as a net loss for human rights. Although the US’s record on human rights is far from the worst on the planet, it is also far from the best. Are you aware that the US is the only Western nation to refuse to sign a UN treaty demanding human rights for women, a status that it shares with countries such as Yemen and Iran?
In any case, what has the Iraq situation got to do with a conflict over human rights? Although the Bush administration has a variety of justifications for its case for war against Iraq in the next couple of days, few of them are directly to do with human rights. Yes, according to one prominent justification, regime change is required b/c Saddam has long violated the human rights of his own citizens. But he is not alone in doing that and the US (and other Western countries) had no problems supporting and arming him and his repressive policies when he was seen to serve their individual political interests. Insofar as the debate over war in Iraq is to do with human rights, the proponents of peaceful disarmament have just as much a case to make as those who clamor to drop 3,000 bombs starting this month.
Can the structure of the UN be improved upon? Absolutely. But let’s not pretend that either the US or the world can do without international bodies; or that the US occupies some kind of de facto moral highground on the matter of human rights that is compromised when it must take part in building international consensus.
Looking at the link that Smackfu provided, there does seem to be some clear differences with my initial list. I am getting a book on the UN Veto out of the library which hopefully should clear it up - probably I should have read it before posting.
I also agree with Riboflavin that the initial link was very unsatisfactory, but it was the best I could come with after 10 minutes on google.
I suppose my posting was prompted by the Blair spin here that the French veto is unreasonable and can be thus ignored. I was interested in looking at the history of the veto, and when and why it was used. there does seem to be some clear differences between Presidents (e.g Clinton Admin hardly ever seemed to use the veto, though this may also reflect what was going on in the world and American foreign policy too)
You assume here that the stated goal is the actual goal of each member, and I would argue that is not necessarily the case. Putting that aside, however, I think there is a tension between the desire to bring “peace and stability by peaceable means” and the occasional need to use force to bring about peace and stability. Peace and stability cannot always be brought about by peaceable means. Some countries refuse to recognize that. When those without resolve stand in the way of accomplishing a legitimate goal, should those with the power to solve the problem sit idly by? I believe the answer to this question is “not always.” An agreement as to a goal is not an agreement as to how that goal should be accomplished.
The “you” is any of the world powers, which loosely defined would be the US, UK, Russia, China and India. I did not specifically say the US, because I think this applies to all of the major world powers. The phrase “your goals” was to indicate a country’s personal goals, not a repetition of the UN goals. Clearly, there are times when the goals of any country will clash with the will of the UN.
A country cedes its judgment to any country on the Security Counsel that exercises its power to veto if that country fails or refuses to act without specific authorization from the Security Council.
Of course it is. Democracy is a procedure by which the minority cedes its judgment to the will of the majority. I would argue that the UN is not a democracy, although it does follow some democratic principles.
I don’t mean to pick on you, here, but I have seen countless SDers say the US is committing bribery, and I have yet to see one person provide proof.
“bribe - n. Something, such as money or a favor, offered to induce or influence a person to act dishonestly.”
Please show me where the US is asking any nation on the SC to act dishonestly and then I will address that part of it.
“bully - n. One who is habitually cruel to smaller or weaker people.”
Show me where the US is being cruel, and I will address that allegation as well. Although these should really be a separate thread.
I am not suggesting there is a “tyranny of the weak,” I am suggesting that the powerful nations are the only ones really giving up anything of value by participating in the UN.
France is not a powerful nation, they just hold a powerful position. Whether countries do or should feel uncomfortable with US power (I disagree with your assertion of aggressiveness) is beside the point. My point is that any country with power (and certainly the US is the most obvious example at this point in history) has no real incentive to allow those countries who are otherwise incapable of keeping it in check to do so by fiat. Clearly, the weaker countries can see a benefit, but what is the benefit to the stronger countries?
There are a lot of Rwandans that would disagree with you on that. That countries like Russia abstained on a vote condemning Iraq’s use of biological and chemical weapons (which they denied having) on the Kurds makes your assumption debatable. My point was not that the US is the world’s morality compass, my point was that the powerful are giving up substantial rights by participating in the UN. The weak do not give up those same rights in any real sense because they do not have the power to impose their will, rightly or wrongly.
You have lost me as to where you are heading here, and what this has to do with the UN and its structure, but if you assertion is that the US is not perfect, I will agree. As to the treaty part, I have not studied the issue, but we both know where the US stands on women’s rights, so I suspect the issue is more involved than has been presented. My argument regarding weak and strong nations in the UN has nothing to do with right and wrong. A powerful country that is evil gives up just as much as a powerful country that is good, assuming both were to abide by the dictates of the UN.
Where did this thread become a discussion about Iraq? I will leave that to another thread.
The world can certainly do without global international bodies, as they have done so for thousands of years. The world could simply act through coalitions of interested countries with regard to various issues that arise. You are about to see that happen. That was not a contention in my first post, however. I have also never said that the US has a de facto moral highground. I believe that the positions stated in my original post apply on a value neutral basis (I did put in the comment on China, which although I believe is valid, did not really add to the overall point, and in retrospect I should have omitted that.) Neither do I advocate the abolition of the UN or US involvement in the UN. I do think that the UN’s track record since 1991 has shown that it is simply not an effective body. Changes need to be made to change that, or a different type of international organization that will be effective should be considered.
After reading The Veto : a Historical Necessity, 1946-2001 : a Comprehensive Record of the Use of the Veto in the UN Security Council / by Anjali V. Patil I withdraw my original question as being unfair. I heartily disagree with most of the vetoes cast by both USA, UK and the USSR, but most of my objections were based on the list complied by Corey Turner (first link), which appears to be very innaccurate or including things that were not proper SC vetoes.
Most of the reasons given by the respective countries for a veto seem trite (e.g. we shouldn’t condemn an particular isreali/SA action because its a frightfully complex situation) masking the true reasons. However, I should also look at what actually was passed by the SC as a balance before commenting further.
Interestingly, the concept of the veto was very much opposed by most of the UN when it was set up, it was only after the US threatened to effectively walk away was it passed.
“The world can certainly do without global international bodies, as they have done so for thousands of years.”
serenity, I’m not going to reply to your post at length b/c we disagree on so many fundamental points, I doubt it would be worth the time we’d have to invest. But a few words about the above. The history of modernity begins, roughly speaking with the mid-eighteenth century. Anything prior to that time is of limited relevance to the practicalities of the present day since the material conditions of both war and peace have changed dramatically in the last 300 years or so.
By the end of nineteenth century worldwide imperialism was the order of the day, and war could be fought on a fairly devastating scale. These historical developments demonstrated to early twentieth century figures such as Woodrow Wilson and J.A. Hobson that effective international institutions were crucial to world peace and prosperity–to which the individual interests of all nations are ineradicably tied. World War I was the glaring proof of that to any person or nation that hadn’t yet figured this out.
The United States’s continuing skepticism was among those factors to hobble the League of Nations, making it too ineffective a body to preempt World War II. The current United Nations is far from perfect but it has helped to keep the later part of the twentienth century comparatively peaceful especially given the increasing destructive power of weapons, and the increasingly global scale on which most national economies must function. In a large, intertwined, greatly transnationalized but, at the same time, dangerous world, international institutions are more important than ever.
The US can try to dominate and administer to the globe as the Romans did thousands of years ago but it will fail. Nor is there even any evidence the either the Bush administration, or (still less) the American people, actually wants to play that role.
Bush and Co. are rank amateurs when it comes to understanding the global processes in which they are immersed. Their mentality at its most perceptive comes from having won the Cold War, but shows almost no perception about what it is they have won. In short, they know that they are the most powerful, but they don’t know how to use their power in a way that serves either American interests or the collective interests of all industrialized nations and most developing countries in maintaining world stability.
There is no imminent threat from Iraq: there is just the Bush desire to proceed with this war at this moment rather than be seen to back down. Amateurish and hamfisted diplomacy, combined with ignorant disdain for international contexts have created this unfortunate predicament. That the UN provides the institutional mechanism for thwarting Bush’s otherwised unchecked and deeply uninformed will shows just how very relevant the UN is.
Here, btw, is exactly the kind of thing I mean by the Bush administration’s damaging amateurism and ignorance.
An except from the article (which concerns the resignation of a diplomat who is the second American diplomat to resign in the last few days):
" The diplomat, John H. Brown, who joined the Foreign Service in 1981, said in a letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made available on Monday, "I cannot in good conscience support President Bush’s war plans against Iraq.
“Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force,” the diplomat said. “The president’s disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century.”
Mandelstam , I am not sure that our differences are as great as they may appear. I responded to your post for several reasons. I thought that it was lucid and articulate, but I also thought that it misinterpreted the point I was trying to make by Americanizing it.
I don’t disagree that global national bodies are important, I just don’t think they are essential. A group of the strongest countries (both militarily and economically) could accomplish much the same thing without requiring a global national body. I am not saying that is necessarily preferable, but when I look at the last decade of the UN, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that it is completely ineffective when it comes to ensuring peace and stability. The UN position on Iraq does not anger me, although I think it shows the problems with the functioning of the UN. It is crazy, in my opinion, that whether there is a war depends on the opinions of a limited number of countries who happen to be rotated onto the security council at the moment. Take the same vote a year later and you could get a completely different result. I think that is absurd.
My major beef with the UN is a result of three main episodes involving Rwanda, Serbia and Kosovo. I think that the failure of the UN in these episodes shows that it is simply not an effective body. The UN will support military action only when an innocent country is attacked. Some might say that is too late. I personally think it is too limited. I also think that the structure with regard to vetoes has problems unless the Security Council is updated from time to time to reflect world power. Everyone knows that France does not belong there and that India does belong. France does not have the power to be taken seriously by those countries with power.
Finally, I have a problem with the fact that the overwhelming record of the UN is that the SC votes not based on what is best to achieve peace and stability, but what is best for the individual member’s economic or political interests. For the UN to work, I think a little selflessness is needed by all permanent members of the SC. I don’t see that ever happening. Which makes me wonder if there is not a better way.
Turning to the issue of the US for a moment, I do disagree with you about Bush. In my opinion, he is trying to be diplomatic, but he sees a danger (as does Blair) that others refuse to see because (1) they have financial interests; (2) they have an interest in seeing US power limited or weakened; and (3) they are not the ones who are in danger of being attacked by terrorists.
Bush went to the UN. He did not need to go to the UN, but he did so because he was convinced that diplomacy should be tried before he acted on his own. The French said they would support him, but now they say they won’t support him no matter what he does. They agreed to a last chance for immediate, unconditional disarmament by Iraq, but they refuse to set deadlines or to agree to the use of force under any circumstances to accomplish disarmament. Bush has been talking to other countries and listening to other countries and has been acting for the benefit of the UK. If he had his way without consideration for our allies or for the opinion of the UN, the war would already be over. He has gathered together a coalition that is made up of more countries than were in the Gulf War. The majority of Americans approve of his job performance regardin the Iraq matter, and I am one of them.
Some of the UN may not approve of what Bush is doing, but I guarantee you they will be rushing to divy up the spoils of Iraqi freedom that was purchased with American and English blood.
serenity, thanks for replying at such length, which I genuinely do appreciate. I think we both agree that the UN is not perfect. The deep differences between us mainly stem from the fact that you accept the Bush case for war in Iraq now and I do not. That basic difference is going to inevitably color our sense of how the UN Security Council is functioning.
But for all the unreconciled and probably unreconcilable differences between us, this has by far been one of the better exchanges I’ve had with a poster of dramatically opposing views on the straight dope. Thanks for that.
