And you don’t think that it had anything at all do do with the fact that all of the supposed accomplishments you referred occurred after the Iraq war? It’s not like I didn’t refer to failures prior to the war. I’d like to see some notable accomplishments which occurred without massive pressure from non-IAEA sources (say, the U.S. or the former Soviet Union). You’ll find the list of such accomplishments stapled between the Amish Phone Book and George Foreman’s Big Book of Baby names.
That certainly seemed to be what you were claiming with your cites, but OK, perhaps I misunderstood you. But again, IAEA has never on its own or even mostly on its own brokered a nonproliferation agreement I’m aware of – “brokerage” tended to be by the world powers at the time and was acheived by threatening to withold aid, etc. As for compliance, a) IAEA is demonstrably bad at it and b) even if they were good at it that hardly makes the case for the UN not being “impotent”.
I’m not arguing for the elimination of the IAEA – simply that their record of failure and impotence actually strengthens the OP instead of weakening it. How to enforce non-proliferation agreements? Well, invading countries which refuse to cooperate seems to be working fairly well. How about the UN gather up some more blue hats and maybe try that tactic – presumably on a country which is not bribing it, so that maybe the French and Russians will play along.
manhattan:I’m not arguing for the elimination of the IAEA – simply that their record of failure and impotence actually strengthens the OP instead of weakening it. How to enforce non-proliferation agreements? Well, invading countries which refuse to cooperate seems to be working fairly well. How about the UN gather up some more blue hats and maybe try that tactic […]
But where’s that leave the principle of not attacking other countries unless they’re attacking you? Again, we’re back to the crux of all the “impotent UN” arguments—people whine that the UN isn’t accomplishing enough, but when institutions or policies are proposed that would give the UN some actual global-policing muscle, we run smack up against these national-sovereignty and national-interest issues, where individual countries don’t like being interfered with.
E.g., would you want to give the UN authority to invade the US if we developed the proposed RNEP tactical nukes, which potentially undermine non-proliferation? Spare me the predictable laughing about how the US could wipe the floor with UN troops—that’s not the point. The point is, do you support officially granting the UN authority to discipline US nuclear policy in that way?
And if not, how can you logically support granting it such authority over the nuclear policies of other states? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, after all.
Well, Americans are the ones who actually have the UN in the country and have to see stuff like this.
Americans see this sort of thing and remember whenever the UN is trumpeted by Europeans as some sort of ultimate moral arbiter. I don’t know if these sort of stories are reported by the foreign press.
Why is North Korea not your golden example of success? The Bush administration knew they were starting warhead production third quarter of '02 (prior to Bush’s request for an authorization to use force in Iraq). So far our bold leadership and show of force has driven them from their previous position of “Just promise you won’t attack us and we’ll stop building nukes”. Now they are making nukes just as quickly as their starving and impoverished country can. (Yes, the credibility of any promise NK makes is questionable).
I very much doubt that the US would countenance an invasion of Pakistan by anyone on nonproliferation grounds. When word of the Pakistani nuclear mall was brought to the attention of the world by the IAEA there were reports that the US had known for several years. They may be the worst violators of the NNPT out there but gosh, between their commitment to democracy and the war on terrorism we need them.
If Iran said “we’re dropping out of the Non Proliferation Treaty and crankin’ up the a-bomb production line” what would the US do? (Obviously the IAEA would have no jurisdiction) Would we fume and curse our impotence because their evil, lawyerlike ways had stymied us from enforcing a treaty they had entered and backed out of voluntarily?
If we are trying to send the message “Don’t proliferate or we’ll smack the crap out of you” we should probably smack the crap out of a proliferating nation, not just any nation we really don’t like.
Hey, I’m not talking about violating a trade agreement here, I’m talking about genocide and slavery. In cases like that, to be frank, “national sovereignty” can pound sand. So if I understand the crux of your argument, apart from the abortive attempt to make the IAEA something beyond the paper-pushers they are, it’s that ‘yeah, it’s pretty much impotent, but whatcha gonna do?’ Please correct me if I’m in error. In case it’s correct, what I’d do is hire more blue hats and turn them loose against genocidists for a start. What’s after that is after that. Baby steps.
Again, baby steps. Let 'em stop a genocide or two where the bad guys have single-shot rifles and machetes and then it might be worth arguing whether their impotence might be further reduced by giving them power (either statutory or actual, as you point out) over the world powers. I’m not calling them impotent because they can’t or won’t take care of North Korea – that’s tough. We’re having trouble, China is having trouble, etc. The UN is impotent because they can’t or won’t take care of the freaking Sudan.
As regards nuclear power specifically, the U.S. and North Korea are not goose and gander by any measure. But I give the UN a pass on that because it’s actually hard. Your case was wrong not because the other world powers were able to stop proliferation and the UN failed (Israel is a US client state, Pakistan was reasonably close to us, India was reasonable close to the former Soviet Union, etc.) but you seemed to be claiming something for IAEA that was not the case.
manhattan:Let 'em stop a genocide or two where the bad guys have single-shot rifles and machetes and then it might be worth arguing whether their impotence might be further reduced by giving them power (either statutory or actual, as you point out) over the world powers. I’m not calling them impotent because they can’t or won’t take care of North Korea – that’s tough. We’re having trouble, China is having trouble, etc. The UN is impotent because they can’t or won’t take care of the freaking Sudan.
I think I see your point, but this still seems to be missing the main point: namely, how is the UN supposed to “take care of” Sudan if they don’t have statutory powers to do so? You’re right that militarily, invading and demilitarizing Sudan would be a hell of a lot easier than doing the same to either China or the US (or NK, for that matter), and would be much more feasible for the blue-helmets to handle. But the central crux remains: what’s the UN’s authority for going in to “take care of” Sudan, and what are the implications of that authority for their authority over us?
You seem to be saying that we should somehow empower them (or they should consider themselves empowered) to mess with the sovereignty of small weak states, and if they can do that effectively and productively then we might empower them to mess with the sovereignty of big strong states. In terms of international governance, I don’t see how you can advocate such a “baby steps” policy without involving an unacceptable double standard.
Also, it means that the Sovereignty of small states is somehow less important than big states, which goes against the whole point of the UN in the first place, that all states small and big should have more or less equal rights. You know, a bit like the Electorial College.
Pass a resolution condeming the behavior and demanding that is cease (inserting as many recallings and recognizings and deplorings as they can stomach, of course), warning of serious consequences.
Pass another resolution reminding of the serious consequences.
Invade.
I’m no UN lawyer – maybe it need a change to the charter to recognize that a nation’s sovereignty is less important than the lives and freedoms of the citizens under whatever murderous dictator might happen to be the sovereign. If so, change the charter.
I don’t see any reason the UN can’t join the real world with the rest of us, nor do I see how membership in reality is somehow an unacceptable double standard. We can’t invade China, but we can take care if Iraq. France isn’t up to taking on Cuba, say, but they did a real nice job with the Central African Empire. Heck, even Vietnam ended genocide in Cambodia, and they’re a third-rate power themselves. Why can’t the UN say, well, OK, the US or whoever is outside our pay grade but Rwanda is not? It’s not a double standard that people swat flies, shoo raccoons and flee alligators.
Sudan: No, it’s the rebels that are killing people!
UN: Fuck you. BAM!
Rwanda: It was a violent uprising!
UN: Fuck you, too. BAM
US: Yeah, the Iraqs needed liberating.
UN: Um, okay. Sure.
And the UN’s claim to legitimacy gets flushed down the toilet, replace with “US’s flunky”. I mean, not that the UN was all that legitimate in the first place, with “security members” getting veto, and the US providing almost all the manpower.
Also, what this means is that you’re basically giving the UN a free mandate to go to war against any country whose internal business they don’t like. See: Iraq. That’s a perfect example of what happens when you infringe some other country’s sovereignty with the “rationale” of “saving the people”.
[QUOTE=Kimstu, how is the UN supposed to “take care of” Sudan if they don’t have statutory powers to do so? [/QUOTE]
I’d settle for them doing a fucking decent job in places where they do have the mandate: Rwanda and Srenbinica come to mind.
Well, that’s more or less what the UN’s International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) proposed in 2001:
Some of the issues raised in the ICISS’s work included how to define the need for military intervention, and whether the UN should be able to bypass the Security Council in authorizing interventions if necessary. If you advocate the UN’s actually being empowered to take such actions, you should definitely urge the US government to support implementation of the ICISS recommendations.
That’s because the flies, raccoons, alligators, and people aren’t participating in an interspecies governance organization which is officially committed to upholding equal rights for all its members. If they were, yeah, you can bet that such behavior would be condemned as a double standard (by everyone except the people and alligators, perhaps).
