Is the war in defiance of the UN, or just without the UN’s go-ahead?
Are they one and the same?
It doesn’t seem that way to me. Bush and Blair taking it upon themselves to enforce a UN resolution is far different from something like Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in direct violation of UN rules.
If the US and UK are so wrong, wouldn’t it be the obligation of the UN to send troops to defend Iraq? Or at least pass a resolution condemning the invasion?
I’d like to learn of similar situations in the past if anyone can remember some, I’m not old enough to remember wars older than the first Persian Gulf war.
One of the reasons that the U.S. did not put their last resolution up for a vote was that it would have lost and then we would have been in violation. As it is one could argue either way and that is the way diplomats like Chirac like it to be.
If the UN passed a resolution condemning the war, whose troops are they going to send in to stop it? Actually, the U.S. would veto such a motion. That is probably why Chirac hasn’t suggested it.
It would have been in defiance of the U.N. only if the U.N. passed a resolution against the war and the U.S. ignored it.
But that can’t happen, because the U.S. has veto power over any possible resolution.
It would arguably have been less legitimate had the Bush administration gone for that second resolution and lost the vote.
Under the current situation, the legal advisors to both Bush and Blair have declared the war legal. You can argue that of COURSE they would say that. And that’s fine. So some other country will have to make a case that the war was illegal, and go to the U.N. and demand a resolution of censure or something.
Ultimately, that won’t happen. Because the U.N. only exists as a powerful entity at the pleasure of the U.S. The U.S. has the only military really capable of enforcing U.N. resolutions, and the U.S. pays the lion’s share of U.N. fees.
My prediction: The U.N. might squawk a bit, but they’ll let the issue drop and forget it ever happened, just like they did when Clinton and Blair attacked Iraq in operation Desert Fox, and when Clinton went around the U.N. in several actions.
When America pressed for R. 1441, our friends and allies were concerned that America wanted “automaticity”: that is, if WMD’s were found, America would feel justified in launching a war without further consultation with, or legal authority from, the Security Council/UN. We assured them this was not the case, in no uncertain terms, as verified by this quote: (with thanks from the esteemed Molly Ivins, smartest woman in Texas, linked below) http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/5462708.htm
"U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said to the Security Council: “There is not ‘automaticity,’ and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.”
They thought they were voting for a pumped up inspection routine, an excellent idea IMHO. On this basis, the US got its much touted “unanimous vote”. We specificly denied any legal right or justification to launch an attack if WMDs were found without further consultation and approval from the UN.
So: were we lying? And will anyone believe a word we say, ever again?
Molly Ivins is a left-wing columnist who is more than slightly biased, you may consider her the smartest woman in Texas but that doesn’t mean that anyone who doesn’t already agree with you will swallow everything she says. In fact, she appears to be absurdly wrong about the quote she’s using to support her position, most likely because of her bias. Let’s look at the relevant part of the quote:
How can that possibly support your contention that a new resolution is required? It quite clearly says that the SC will have an opportunity to consider the matter, not that they must issue a resolution supporting any action. The UN certainly had plenty of opportunity to consider the matter before any action was taken, just like the US promised, and offered no condemnation of it. It looks like we lived up completely to what Negroponte said.
So, you think that France’s stated opposition to any resolution genuinely supporting inspections was bad? They swore to veto any resolution that included use for force for Iraqui noncompliance, and I think it’s pretty clear that Iraq would not comply with inspections in the absence of a threat.
Cite, please. Nothing in the material you’ve provided supports your contention that the US would need the support of the UN in the form of a resolution.
US has veto power in the S.C., but not the Gen Ass’y. Would a resolution have to come from the S.C. first? Just wondering if there is a way for a resolution condeming the US is possible.
So far, it is a grey area. The war is of doubful “legality”, but Bush can claim the attack is in self defence against a “prior attack”, ie Sept 11th. This would make it legal. Now, I am sure than many will sit in their aimchairs and insist that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and thus the war isn’t legal. But you dudes in the armchairs don’t get to make that decision, the Security counsel does. They likely won’t rule against the USA. We have enough votes for that. Now the UN & SC did declare SH’s actions illegal- but stopped short of giving the green light for invasion (althoough certain limited “force”, such as the “no fly zone” was approved, prior).
So the war is neither “legal” nor “illegal”, if by that you mean what the UN decides. The UN has neither given it’s Ok, nor condemned it as illegal. Neither is likely to happen.
John- yes, the GA could (and might well) issue a “resolution” condemning the USA. But such has no legal meaning, no more than the City Council of Berkeley doing the same. The GA doesn’t get the right to decide about wars and whether or not they are “illegal”, that’s for the SC.
So until the SC acts, one way or t’other, the “War” is neither Legal or Illegal. The US claims it is legal, and the SC has not reputiated that claim.
My point was not about legality, but about whether the US’s actions are in “defiance” of the UN. Until the UN passes a resolution otherwise, one has to say that it is not.
The anti-war people here make a pretty good argument about how the UN only passed 1441 with assurances that the US would ask for a vote from the SC if Saddam didn’t comply with the inspections.
Can it be argued that judging from past experience the people who voted for “serious consequences” didn’t really mean that either? Saddam was not forthcoming at all, even with the threat of force.
It really seems to me that both sides contributed to making the UN look useless, but the anti-war side should have been the one to back down. The war is against the dangerous and UN-defying Saddam Hussein, not some country that’s minding its own business like Andorra or Sweden.
You are indeed old enough to remember. Just think about it. It seems Europe’s memory is short too. Many in America and around the world remember the 90s under Clinton being very different that I do. Clinton have never gone in to attack a sovereign nation who has not provoked the USA. The UN thinks this is condemnable as does the European Union. Yeah, right.
Let’s think back to Haiti where Clinton invaded a tiny nation of REALLY no importance to the US. This nation is Haiti. This nation, as the Left says of Iraq, was no threat to the US at all. We helped oust Aristide. Let’s think back to when Clinton led NATO to attack Milosavich’s war maching to help out a bunch of KLA (albanian muslims) low-lifes who were classified as terrorists by the FBI. Milosavich was of no threat the USA or Europe. Yet, Europe and USA came together to remove him. Why?
Is it human rights? Because if so, why is Bush laughed at when he mentions Hussien’s human rights record?
I think it’s pretty clear that this breaks the back of the U.N. Charter (which we originally wrote). There have been major wars before which did not fall under the two exceptions for war, but in almost all those cases, the majority of the world supported the actions. This war, in addition to clearly not falling under the exceptions, has completely divided Europe and the Security Council to a degree of emnity never really seen before, and there’s no question that it comes at the cost of decades of successes in bringing the world, and even regions like the EU to the table in a fairly civil fashion. Of course, maybe that was half the point.
The United Nations Charter significantly limits the General Assembly’s involvement in matters that have come before the Security Council:
UN Charter, art. 12(1). Even if the General Assembly did consider a resolution (for example, on the theory that the Security Council was not “exercising . . . the functions assigned to it”), it would take a two-thirds vote:
The problem with your interpretation is you have conveniently skipped this part:
The “action” part is contingent on this part. Since no violation has been found, as determined by Hans Blix and his lads, what is the basis for action?
Wrong, the most obvious violation is Iraq’s lack of full and immeadiate compliance. The contention that “Hans Blix said no violation has been found” is grossly incorrect.
What exactly am I supposed to address? Powell said that he’s going to take Saddam’s repeated violations to the Security Council for them to convene immediately to consider what should be done. He didn’t say anything that supports the contention that SC approval would be required to do anything. Quotes of people saying ‘hey, I’m going to take this before this group’ simply don’t suppport ‘approval from this group is required for your actions to be legal’.
No, the problem with my interpretation is that it inconveniently for you doesn’t involve any imagination. I know this is incredibly basic, but oh well. “…Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist…” talks about whatever violation there is, or whatever violation is judged to exist, not anything else you might imagine. It talks about a violation that exists not one that is acknowledged by the UNSC, and the terms of 1441 do not include merely a prohibition on Hussein possessing WOMD, but a requirement for him to document their destruction - a violation that clearly exists.
Sorry, I missed the section that says that Hans Blix and his lads have to find the violation. Could you quote it for me, or did you conveniently skip actually basing your argument on the real text? The “action” part is contingent on the part that says a violation must exist.
If it’s such a good argument, exactly where is the actual text stating that the US would ask for a vote from the SC if Saddam didn’t comply with the inspections. It’s a rather weak argument unles someone can actually come up with these assurances that the US would ask for a vote or the part of 1441 requiring a vote.
