Reading through the “Kofi says Iraq war was illegal under UN charter” thread, it brought up a question, perhaps a hijack in retrospect.
Why haven’t the UN, France, and all those other places that opposed us going into Iraq protested more? If any other country ignored us and attacked a nation, we’d be up in arms, talking about sanctions, etc.
Why haven’t they (the opposing countries) done anything to the US? Why didn’t the governments protest our actions after we went in?
Well, they did ‘protest’ the actions, repeatedly. What do you expect? Should they bomb Washington, to make their position thoroughly clear?
Why isn’t the US ‘up in arms’ over the occupation of Tibet, Palestine, …
Sorry, it’s just too easy to point out the double standards being applied here.
Because we’re the Big Dog. Not that that makes it right, but any country that currently deals with the US who refused to do so because of Iraq would take a major hit to the economy. Our trade balance is heavily tilted toward imports.
And after all, Iraq was kind of an object lesson on what happens to nations that nip at our tail too much.
Again, I find the attitude appalling, but I’m not sufficiently self-deluded to be able to pretend it’s not the truth.
Because for one, the U.N. isn’t the world police, no matter what Roosevelt may have wanted it to be back in the 40s.
Secondly, “illegal” in international relations means almost nothing. Foreign affairs tends to be shaped by self-serving interests and power.
It may be in France’s self-interest to protest and complain somewhat. But to take it to the next level, sanctions and other agressive action, that is not in France, or any European powers interests.
Thirdly, no, we wouldn’t be all the up in arms over anyone else doing it.
Israel has done it, Russia does it to a large degree, many people didn’t want to invade Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, et cetra. The fact is nations and people seem to be pretty damn tolerant towards this sort of thing in the grand scheme of things.
The UN does nothing because there’s nothing it can do. It weilds no authority it is not given as a token gesture, so when a nation witholds its assent (especially a powerful one), the UN as an institution is powerless to affect anything within the borders of said nation, or anywhere in that nation’s sphere of influence.
As for France: Puh-lease. France had its own self-serving reasons for protesting the War, all of them essentially financial. International Law (if there is such a thing, in practice) had little or nothing to do with France’s dissent, and for them to make too much of a stink would draw some uncomfortable attention to its own sins in places like Algeria, and its continuing internal problems with things like head scarves. France is no friend of the Arab or the Muslim, except when there are lucrative contracts to be had. Once those contracts are beyond reach, there is little more to argue about that is in their interest.
But they have!
You’ve no doubt heard about the election that’s supposed to take place in Iraq this coming January? Well, in order to keep that on schedule, we need to have a UN sanctioned census of the country under our belt sometime in October. Kofi has said, in no uncertain terms, that his census takers need security in the form of a multinational force, and that force must come together by the end of this month. Despite pleading from the Bush administration, no one has so far volunteered to take part in that force. Mr. Annan has asked for help too, but his calling the war illegal now, is sure to have an offputting effect.
Barring a rabbit leaping fully formed, out of a hat that no one can see, the US is well and truly screwed.
That’s kind of what I figured. I did think it was strange how France, etc were so vocal… until we actually started shooting.
Of course, that’s not to say they aren’t having a small chuckle over our problems there. Or maybe feeling a little smug about us not finding WMD… looks like they were right in not coming along.
The UN’s response is limited by the fact that it acts through the Security Council, on which the US has a veto. It can therefore never move proactively against the US (or anyone whom the US wishes to protect). The most it can do is to fail to cooperate with the US.
France’s response is limited by the fact that it does not consider itself the world’s policeman, and the first priority of the French government is to protect and advance the interests of France. There is no action which France could take against the US which would be effective, and any ineffective action would harm France more than the US.
DING DING DING this one wins the really big stuffed animal. And may I add that the US’s 1st priority is to protect and advance the interest of the US. As such the US being the only superpower on this planet can greatly influnence the UN in furthering US goals. Also add to that the UN did state that there would be grave conquences if Iraq didn’t comply, which Iraq didn’t and the UN would have lost all credibility if they now opposed their own mandate.
Trouble with you logic is that Iraq was complying with inspections. It was the US that went off to form a Coalition of the Willing when it was obvious that the case for attacking Iraq was unconvincing.
Since the US now admits that there were no WMD, the whole claim of the US that we had to attack Iraq because of imminent danger has proven to be one giant crock.
I agree with other posters in this thread - most countries simply cant do anything.
The one thing they did do was to not support the war - say F.U. when the US / UK tried to get a second resolution through.
I’m guessing that many of them:
didnt belive there was a clear and present danger comming from Iraq.
saw the potential for a “can open, worms everywhere” situation futher down the line.
didnt belive that there were WMDs.
knew that the US / UK would come running soon enough asking for a more multinational force to help stop the impending civil war / Muslim vs the west polarization.
Seems to me that they were 100% correct in all the above assumptions.
As the whole situation slides deeper into the shit - the power held by the rest of the international community who refused to support the war is gradually increasing. They are all watching us. This is our mess - we deserve everything that we get. The 12,000 Iraqi civilians who are now dead really didnt deserve it.
To clarify: The UN / EU etc dont need to do anything. It is plain for all to see that it is a fuckup of monumental proportions. Maybe they are just gratefull that they spotted the scam before they sent their $29.99 “registration fee”.
Um, can I point out that there was an armistice, not a cessation of the war, so we were technically still at war, just like Korea. All we did was resume.
As to the illegality of it overall…what single country in their right mind has the mlitary might to tell us Bad Doggie and whap us on the nose with a newspaper? Obviously Saddam Hussein didnt think taking over a few bits of land and changing the map of the world was illegal when he did it just over 10 years ago, but obviously when he did it a few countries thought so, not just us. I seem to remember a few other countries sending in troops and supplies. Illegality is in the perception of the person, as in general laws are enacted at the national level and not the international level. That takes something akin to the Geneva Conventions, treaties and compacts/concords. Therefore, if the US signs a treaty with Germany, Poland, Austria, and France to not invade them, we can legally go kick the shit out of the Swiss without ‘breaking’ any laws. Hell, to be blunt about it, it isn’t illegal to declare war on anybody we don’t have a peace treaty with, we just have to convince Congress that it is a good idea.
<apparently that little point came up when they were doing some sort of schooling that mrAru did before he retired last year from the US military.]
I can almost, though not entirely agree with this. How did invading Iraq do this? Moreover, how do you justify our protection of Israel as defending our own interests?