The UN will approve some kind of resolution, not quite what Bush wants, but close enough Bush will not be able to go directly to invasion.
Iraq will drag its feet, do some hide and seek with the inspections and the whole process with be strung out over 6-10 months.
By that time, domestic sentiment will have changed, there will be insufficient support for a full scale invasion and the US will be pretty much back into the same position as now in about 2 years. Or perhaps worse.
Political and military issues like this never seem to be solved, but “resolved”, which really means we did as much as we could without suffering loses our citizens won’t support.
Personally I think that it realy doesn´t matter what the UN really thinks about this whole issue because, in the end, the US will end up doing what they want and the UN will not stand in their way because, like it or not, the US is the primary financial source of the UN, and let´s face it, without the US, the UN probably wouldn´t exist.
I think that wanting the approuval of the UN is just a formalism and a way of not being seen like “terrorists” in the rest of the world .
The way I see it, the US will attack Iraq sooner or later and the desire to demostrate their power once again to the rest of the world, and the desire of being seen as heroes to the eyes of the world for stopping Sadamm will be satisfied, at least for now.
First let me address your point about the “we” business. I, for the most part, disagree. I think the government DOES represent the American people and their interests, to the extent that using “we” do describe both our government and its population isn’t inaccurate. Surely, some politicians are more interested in power and money than our interests, and not all decisions are made based on what’s best for the people (cough DMCA cough), but by and large, I think our government tries to do what’s best. Keep in mind that the best thing for our nation and the thing that garners the most popular support aren’t always the same - granting civil rights to blacks certainly wasn’t popular, but it was the right thing to do, and for the good of the nation. I don’t think this is really something debateable, though - whether someone agrees with me or you is mostly a function of cynicism. Or naivete, as the case may be.
The US isn’t contemplating an invasion of Iraq simply because Iraq could be a threat. Anyone could be a threat. France could rise up and storm our beaches and throw bombs made of cheese at us. The thing is that we believe (whether incorrectly or no) that Iraq is a threat, and that they actively seek to do harm to us and others. The reason we aren’t trying to invade France isn’t because they couldn’t theoretically be a threat, but because France hasn’t publicly stated that they want to kill our citizens, and then gone to the trouble of trying to secure the means to do so.
As such, the right we would have to grant to other states, according to what you stated above, is the right to pre-emptively attack a nation that has declared it wants to hurt you, and is trying to muster the ability to do so. And I have no problem granting that right to other states.
Bah. We aren’t attacking Iraq because they want nukes. We’re attacking Iraq because they want nukes AND they want to use them AND we think they would if given the chance AND several other reasons that have nothing to do with WMDs, and everything to do with violating UN Security Council resolutions that were formed as part of a cease-fire.
And here you run across the point at which this analogy fails. When a person breaks the rules, we can choose between executing him, or throwing him in jail, or whatever. We can’t throw Iraq in prison. We can’t fine it. (Well, we tried, in the form of sanctions, but that didn’t work well.) There isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between our punishment options for people who break the rules and our options for governments that break the rules. The argument “we wouldn’t execute a person for conspiracy to commit murder, so we can’t perform regime change on a nation for conspiracy to launch nukes” doesn’t work very well.
You forgot to add a few elements to this analogy that would make it more accurate:
person A has killed other people before, establishing a precedent in his willingness to do so.
it’s not simply that he may be a more potent threat some day, it’s that he willfully trying to make himself more of threat, and it’s reasonable to assume that, given enough time, he will succeed.
you are not considering acting alone because you believe you’re “superior” to everyone else, but because you fear for your safety.
the fact that you would shoot or arrest someone for acting like you is inaccurate, unless you can provide me an example where the US prevented another nation from pre-emptively striking a foe in self-defense when it was determined that the foe had the other nation’s destruction as a stated goal. In fact, the only example of a nation acting in this manner that I can think of off the top of my head is Israel during the 6-Day War, whom we supported.
Our divergent views on the relationship between government and citizens are really central to this discussion, even if they don’t directly address the OP:
I assume you mean ”best” in the sense of ”morally best.” This, I suspect, is the watershed that separates supporters and critics of US foreign policy.
My analysis of US foreign relations rests on the realization (or insight, or belief if you will) that what is materially ”best” for the US government, and arguably for important sectors of the US economy, is seldom the same as what is ”best” for the people abroad with whom the US is relating. Saudi Arabia is a good example: the US actively aids the Saudi government in maintaining its ”internal security,” with training programs and various kinds of military assistance, and in exchange the Saud family guarantees the US access to crude oil. This agreement is good for the US, and good for the Sauds, but is most emphatically not good for the average Saudi Arabian citizen, who is thereby politically marginalized, subject to arrest and torture by Saudi security forces, and without recourse to domestic institutions that support democratic or human rights.
In an important study of US-Latin American relations, Cole Blaiser analyzed US policies according to three criteria; concern for state security, concern for business interests, and concern for human rights. He found that when forced to decide among these criteria, the US inevitably followed the following pattern:
State security trumped business interests: when forced to decide between protecting itself or protecting the interests of major US business interests in the region, the US invariably chose to act according to its perceived security interests.
Business interests trumped human rights: when forced to decide between protecting business interests or promoting human rights, the US invariably chose to protect business interests.
Human rights trumped nothing: US concern for human rights in Latin America was third on the list, and US policy initiatives to promote them in the time frame investigated (1940s to 1980s, I believe) were so scarce as to be virtually non-existent.
This is particularly eye-opening when one compares the government’s official rhetoric to the policies it pursued at the time, in which the US constantly proclaimed itself to be the champion of human rights in the region, cynically attempting to frame all of its policy decisions in those terms.
*On the contrary. Your statement indicates that when you use the word ”popular,” you really mean ”popular among a certain section of the population” – namely, middle- and upper-class whites. In fact, granting civil rights to blacks was a popular movement, strongly supported within the black community of course (12% of the US population), and under King’s charismatic leadership, growing in popularity even among middle-class white communities (which is why the US government had to respond to it, in my opinion). It was also, by the way, the right thing to do in the 1950s, and even the 1940s, but at that time, there was no strong popular support for it, at least among those who ”matter” – and thus, naturally, the government turned a blind eye to it.
The Civil Rights Movement is one example of the fact that the US population can affect government policy, if properly organized. Another is the popular dissent expressed by large sections of the US population against US policies in Nicaragua after the fall of Samoza. This dissent essentially forced the US government to go ”underground,” i.e., to rely on primarily covert operations, in its attempts to thwart a Latin American populist revolution it perceived to be counter to its interests.
Anyway, it is historically inaccurate to give credit to the US government for the gains made as a result of the Civil Rights Movement, since the government was only responding to popular unrest. To put it crudely, it was afraid that if it didn’t make concessions, it might conceivably loose control of its population. The people who participated in the movement – many of whom were beaten, harassed, arrested, water-hosed, attacked with dogs, and so forth, by the agents of the US government (i.e., the police force) – are the ones who should be credited with its accomplishments.
I’m kinda at a loss regarding the rest of your arguments:
*You’re argument here seems to imply that your ”belief” that Iraq is a threat justifies unilateral US military response, regardless of whether or not that belief is an accurate reflection of reality.
This issue is significantly more complicated than your argument would suggest. Iraq was our ally, for better or worse, before the Gulf War. Its threats are the result of the fact that the US, in particular, opposed its attempt to annex Kuwait. Had we supported the Iraqi attack, or backed off from the pressure we’ve applied since then, the official attitude of the Iraqi regime would not be the same. I’m not advocating that we back off, mind you, I’m just pointing out that Iraq is threatening US citizens, to the extent that we can make such a claim, because it perceives that the US government is threatening its citizens, and much more gravely – with sanctions, no-flight zones, regular bombing raids, and the like.
Anyway, an inspection of current Iraqi rhetoric quickly reveals that it is almost exclusively defensive in nature: “if the US invades, it will taste the full wrath of the Iraqi people’s determination to protect their homeland,” and such crap.
*Thus, getting down to brass tacks, you have no problem with a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, provided that the Chinese claim they perceive Taiwan as a threat to their security in the region (which they surely do).
*This is your claim and thus you need to back it up with good evidence. In particular, I need to see evidence that Iraq ”wants to use nukes,” and against whom; that it has a seriously potential ability to acquire nukes and the necessary ”delivery systems” to effectively utilize them, despite world-wide efforts to prevent such an acquisition; and that, given the chance, it would use them, offensively and without provocation. I also need to see evidence that your main concern is Iraq’s violation of the cease-fire agreement, especially since Powell and Rumsfeld have stated expressly that US policy in this matter has nothing to do with SC resolutions, and everything to do with Iraqi disarmament. Finally, even granting all of the above, your argument fails to justify unilateral action of force.
::shrug::
Well, it was your analogy. You can certainly manipulate it all you want, but at the end of the day, those manipulations simply serve to justify your actions, rather than reflect reality. For example:
*I did not realize that the destruction of the US was the stated goal of Iraq. Do you have a cite to back up this claim?
Anyway, my criticism remains the same: you justify US actions by creating a scenario/analogy in which there appears to be no situation in which US actions can be considered wrong, regardless of what the US does. So let me ask you bluntly: do you believe that US actions abroad are always right, regardless of what those actions might be?
You still haven’t addressed my points concerning the UN Charter, and particularly the violation of Article 2. In what way can unilateral US action be said to conform to the commitment of the US to the UN Charter – or do you think we should simply disregard our commitment to it?
Mr. Svinlesha, I think we’ve come to an impasse here. I’m arguing in terms of moral justification, you’re arguing in terms of actuality. If I (or the US) firmly believe something, and act on that belief in such a way that my actions would be justifiable if my beliefs were true, then to me, my actions are morally justifiable, even if it turns out my beliefs were wrong. This is why we don’t execute people who kill someone because they believe that person is an evil demon who’s trying to murder their children. We have them committed. They were wildly wrong in their beliefs, but they acted in an understandable way, given what they did believe.
By your reasoning, if a cop, for example, shoots a suspect because he believes that suspect is pointing a gun at him and is about to shoot, and it turns out the the suspect was just holding a comb, that cop is immoral. I suppose you would then support trying that cop for first degree murder.
To answer your final question:
Of course not, and if you honestly believe I was endorsing anything of the sort, you’re greatly confused.
Hello, my internet was down so I was not able to comment earlier. ElJeffe and Mr. Svinlesha have had quite a shoot-out. I will have to side with Mr. Svinlesha.
As far as international diplomacy is concerned, the highest court in all the land is the UN (this is the intention with which it was originally created by the US). Now let’s take the hypothetical cop ElJeffe mentioned earlier:
Let’s say that cop goes to court with a case saying that the suspect holding a comb is in fact holding a gun and intends to kill the cop with it. The judge realizing that it is in fact a comb rules in favor of the suspect. The cop then, not content with the veredict, goes and kills the suspect anyways. I think that the cop would later be “trialed” for first degree murder, unless he pleaded insanity first.
If the US agreed to have the UN act as a type of international relations court (not only agreed to, but basically created it for this purpose) then it should have to abide by the laws of this court (the UN charter) no matter how much it thinks it is being threatened.
Do we really need permission from a group that lets Saddam break it’s resolutions left and right for about 11 or so years, and only thinks about acting after Bush says that they’re in danger of becoming irrelevant?
In fact, didn’t we enter most of the other conflicts before and after the Gulf War without waiting for UN Resolutions?
In Kosovo, we sent in troops to help end the ethnic cleansing that was going on there. We didn’t have a UN resolution, Milosevic wasn’t a threat to the US, and yet, with NATO support, Clinton sent in troops anyway.
But I understand the UN’s concerns. If we attack Iraq, the otherwise peacful Hussein might be provoked into using his chemical and biological weapons. After all, he hasn’t show any signs of aggression and hostility, well, except for starting a war with some country called…Iran I think it is. Oh, and then there was this minor skirmish with a country called Kuwait. It’s so obscure, I’m sure most of you haven’t heard about it. And then of course, he gassed his own people. But other than that, when left alone, he’s perfectly harmless.
And how could we ever convince the UN since we lack so much evidence? I mean, Iraqi defectors claiming he’s close to acheiving nuclear capability, al qaeda training camps in Iraq, several Al Qaeda detainees who said that Iraq provided “some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development.”. I mean, there’s no evidence at all that he’s a menace to anyone. And since the UN members, especially the security council, have absolutely nothing to fear from him, then they’ll be reluctant in giving us their support.
Wait. Stop the presses. Are you arguing that an insane person is morally justified in killing someone, as long as they believe they are doing the right thing?
Actually, as I’ve always been given to understand it, we (see, there’s that ”we” again) don’t execute people judged insane precisely because ”we” feel that, due to their condition, they are incapable of rational moral judgement. The most notable characteristic of this incapacity is the person’s inability to separate fantasy from reality, and thus to adjust their behavior so that it accords with that which is commonly taken to be ”real.” I know of no one (except, apparently, you) who extrapolates, on the basis of this incapacity, that an insane person is morally justified in his or her actions, nor that US laws represent a tacit recognition of this morality.
Again, judging from you position, our laws against murder and other violent crimes must be immoral, because they fail to account for the possibly altruistic motivations of the murderer. After all, under your moral system, if I kill someone because I ”firmly believe” it is the ”right thing to do,” then ”my actions are morally justifiable, even if it turns out my beliefs were wrong.” Accordingly, we must take into account, not the act committed, but the motivation of the person committing it. If he believed he was doing the right thing, well, he’s morally justified in doing so. And punishing someone for acting in a morally justified manner is immoral, is it not?
By contrast, it is my contention that, if we are sane, we have a moral obligation to find out if our beliefs are consistent with reality before acting – especially if the act we are contemplating is murder (or war). We cannot use the fact that ”we did not know” as a defense after such an act, unless we are willing to declare ourselves insane. In other words, the mere ”belief” that you are acting in a morally correct way cannot be used as a blanket defense against accusations of immoral/unacceptable behavior. After all, vigilantes believe they are morally correct, as do Nazis, members of al-Queda, and many others besides. Does the fact that Osama bin Ladin ”firmly believes” the 9/11 attack was ”the right thing to do” make his actions ”morally justifiable – even if it turns out that his beliefs were wrong?”
I’ve presented several detailed examples in which the actions of the US, judged by any common moral standard, are reprehensible. I have also rebutted the sole example of moral action you have thus far attributed to the US government (the Civil Rights Movement). Apparently, however, belief trumps reality in your world; thus, despite much evidence to the contrary, you continue to insist that ” by and large, I think our government tries to do what’s best.” Following the logic of this argument we could claim that since the US government “believes” it is doing what is right, the reality of its actions become morally irrelevant. This appears to be the inescapable consequence of your moral judgement.
Again with the analogies! International relations are not easily reducible to games of cops and robbers, you know.
On the other hand, it is interesting, in this context at least, to look at the way you’ve framed this question. To begin with, a policeman is an individual who has undergone extensive training, and by virtue of that training been granted the right to uphold the laws of the community, by force if necessary; the laws he upholds, in their turn, have been agreed upon by the community as a whole. How is this relevant to a discussion of US unilateral action against Iraq? We have no such mandate; in fact, arguing that the US has a the right to act against Iraq without UN approval is equivalent to arguing that a cop has the right to set himself over the law. How many times do I have to point this out?
But anyway, you’ve misunderstood me. My point is that such a policeman, before shooting, has a responsibility to determine first whether or not his assailant is actually holding a gun, or a comb; and that further, if a cop goes around regularly shooting people when they’re combing their hair, he cannot continually justify his actions on the basis that he ”thought” they were all holding guns.
*That wasn’t my final question; scroll up and see for yourself. My final question was this:
In what way can unilateral US action be said to conform to the commitment of the US to the UN Charter – or do you think we should simply disregard our commitment to it?*
I must have asked this question, in various threads, about half a dozen times now, and so far no one who supports US actions against Iraq has even ventured to respond to it.
Oh well – I guess if we ”believe” we’re doing the right thing, then the fact that we aren’t doesn’t really matter.
Okay, I’ll answer your final question. I think that our commitment to the UN Charter should be upheld to the extent that it does not impede upon our ability to provide for the safety of our citizens. If abiding by the charter and protecting our people are shown to be mutually exclusive, then I think that shows the UN Charter to be inappropriate, and the UN itself to be counterproductive and obsolete.
The point of the UN - as I understand it, anyway - is to provide for the peace, stability, and well-being of its members, and for the world at large. As such, it must remain credible. It must be demonstrated that if the UN says something, nations had better abide by it. The UN has shown time and time again that if you disobey resolutions, well then, by golly… they’ll… umm… frown at you, and pass more resolutions. It’s become a sham. It’s showing the world that it’s unwilling to use force to backup its will. If a policeman told you you were under arrest, but you knew that he had no power to enforce this arrest, why would you come with him? I don’t blame Saddam. If I were him, I’d ignore the UN, too. It’s not like they’ve given him any reason to believe he needs to obey.
The US is trying to encourage the UN to stand up for itself, and to show the world that it actually is important, that its declarations should be taken seriously. If that fails though - if the UN continues to waffle in a characteristically UN-ish fashion - we have two choices. We can continue to pretend that the UN means something, or we can acknowledge its impotence and look to ourselves to solve our own problems. I think you can guess what I would choose.
Let me ask you something? Do you think the League of Nations was justified in its position regarding Germany in the late 30’s? If, say, England had decided to unilaterally attack Germany, rather than continue to appease it, would it have been acceptable?
Jeff
Okay, I admit it…I’ve read your reply several times now, but I just don’t quite follow you. Let’s go through it slowly.
This much is obvious; a state is responsible for the security of its citizens, at least in principle, and it would appear that even we agree on that. (Whew!)
Well, again, obviously. But this is precisely what I asked you. Do you in fact feel, given the current world situation, that ”abiding by the Charter” and ”protecting US citizens” are mutually exclusive?
It would appear, by the way, that the current US administration feels that way. Their pretext, according to the latest NSS (National Security Strategy) paper, is ”terrorism:”
**Meeting this ”new” threat (which, coincidentally, has been around for hundreds of years), according to Bush, requires a ”new” set of security policies. Among these is the right of the US to set aside other commitments, when necessary, and attack ”perceived enemies:”
Now – it is my position that the US cannot have its cake and eat it too. By this I mean that the US cannot continue to be a member of the UN while simultaneously claiming that it is not subject to the mandates of the UN Charter. These mandates strictly forbid states from engaging in ”force or threat of force” when dealing with other states. (There is one exception to that rule – Article 51, that gives states the right to defend themselves, when attacked, until such time as the UN can get its act together.)
*I think you’re selling the UN short here. Of course, it’s a flawed institution in many ways. But the fault doesn’t lie with the ”UN” as such, IMHO; it lies with the member states who constitute it. This is especially true of the US, which consistently ignores, sidesteps, or otherwise disregards the will of the UN when it doesn’t get its way. (This is probably true of the other permanent SC members as well, although I don’t know enough about their behavior to say much about it.)
Consider this: Israel, a US ally, is in violation of both the Geneva convention and a set of Security Council resolutions. If, as your statement above seems to indicate, you believe the UN must be ”credible,” does this not imply that the UN should react strongly to Israeli intransigence regarding the settlements? ”Force” the Israelis out? Bomb them? Are you critical of the fact that the US actually supports the Israeli government, despite its refusal to relent to SC resolutions? There have been several attempts on the part of other nations to put in place a UN peacekeeping force in Israel/Palestine. These attempts have been sabotaged, in part by resistance on the part of the Israeli government, but mainly because the US has blocked them. In what way does this jive with your claim that the US tries to “encourage” the UN as a serious actor in the world’s political arena?
*This argument doesn’t make much sense to me. The UN has shown Hussein that it can act with force; remember the Gulf War? The last 12 years of sanctions? The UN-approved no-flight zones? The inspections?
*?
No. The US is trying to badger the world community into attacking its current ”Public Enemy No. 1,” and stating explicitly that if the UN refuses to follow US dictates, it will violate the UN Charter and take matters into its own hands. On the news tonight, for example, it was reported that the US tried to interfere with/postpone the current negotiations between Umovic and Iraq, much to the irritation of Hans Blix. But as you know, Bush administration doesn’t want a new round of UN-sanctioned inspections; it wants a regime change.
There’s certainly a very great risk that the UN will continue to ”waffle,” as you put it. That’s because your government wants the UN to waffle, and has a vested interest in seeing it do so. Otherwise, your government won’t be able to impose its will on the world. You see, being in the UN, and a member of the world community, means that you can’t always get what you want – but the US doesn’t like it when it doesn’t get its way.
*(but if you try sometimes, well, you just might find – you get what you neeeeeed!)
*Oh no! Not another metaphor!
I’d like to answer your question, but to be completely honest, I must plead ignorance. I simply don’t know enough about the League of Nations and Germany to give you a decent answer.
Of course, hindsight is 20-20. You mention the 1930s, when Germany was arming itself in violation of the Treaty of Versailles (if I’m not mistaken). It’s generally acknowledged by historians that the terms of the treaty were too harsh, designed as they were to humiliate Germany as well as end the war, and that the harshness of the treaty was one factor that motivated the German rearmament programs. Our conditions upon Iraq, by comparison, are much, much harsher.
But I wonder how the world would have reacted if, in say 1937, England had decided to unilaterally attack Germany, which at that point had done little except begin to rearm itself. I hate to think about it. We might have wound up at war with the Brits again, I fear.
Two chapters of the UN Charter clarify the powers of the UN Security Council and its resolutions. Resolutions adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter - that deals with “Pacific Resolution of Disputes” - are implemented through a process of negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration between the parties to a dispute. UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 1967 is a Chapter VI resolution which, when taken together with Resolution 338, leads to an Israeli withdrawal from territories (not all the territories) that Israel entered in the 1967 Six-Day War, by means of a negotiated settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The resolution is not self-enforced by Israel alone; it requires a negotiating process.
The most severe resolutions of the UN Security Council are those specifically adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter - that deal with “Threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression.” When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council adopted all its resolutions against Iraq under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The implementation of those resolutions was not contingent on Iraqi-Kuwaiti negotiations, for Iraq engaged in a clear-cut act of aggression. Moreover, UN resolutions on Iraq are self-enforcing, requiring Iraq alone to comply with their terms. However, the UN recognized, under Article 42 of the UN Charter, the need for special military measures to be taken if a Chapter VII resolution is ignored by an aggressor.
It is noteworthy that in 1967, no UN body adopted a resolution branding Israel as the aggressor in the Six-Day War, despite Soviet efforts, for it was commonly accepted that Israeli actions were the result of a war of self-defense.
Thanks for the clarification. Shame I didn’t understand it. Any links to relevant info would be appreciated. Are you claiming that Israel is not in violation of resolutions 242 and 338? I’ve always read otherwise.
For what its worth, I also agree that the Six Day war was a defensive action, despite its preemptive character. I keep wondering why El Jeffe hasn’t mentioned it in this context. Anyway, the Security Council does have some leeway in interpreting the Charter, I assume. Israel was surrounded and outnumbered by hostile states that were also threatening war and moving troops. Clearly, the State of Israel had the right to act in its own defense in this situation.
I argue that the Six Day war is a special case, however, and far removed from the situation now current between the US and Iraq.
The resolutions on Iraq, even if authorizing force, are a matter between the UN and Iraq, not the US and Iraq. The US can’t go around them, as I understand it, without using Article 51. Is this interpretation incorrect?
You can’t believe everything you read, especially re Israel & the PA, as many journalists, writers, etc. are biased and do not give the whole picture. As the cites stated (sorry I have not searched for the UN resolutions themselves, but you can probably find them), those resolutions require that the parties negotiate a settlement. No settlement (no pun intended) can be imposed by the UN itself.
The problem, as I see it, re Article 51 (which provides for self-defense when imminent attack is pending), is that it is not applicable in this case as Iraq is in violations of 16 (I believe the number is 16) resolutions of the UN. The sanctions imposed on Iraq due to these violations (which terms Iraq agreed upon after losing the Gulf War) have been inadequate. Iraq continues to build up its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and is attempting to reestablish its nuclear capabilities. (Israel had “dismantled” its nuclear capability in 1981 and after the Gulf War it was discovered that it had been well on its way to reestablishing them again.)
I don’t like to beat a dead horse, but I believe the analogy with Hitler is valid. With much trepidation, he violated the Treaty of Versailles regarding the build-up of the German Army. When he saw that the League of Nations was feckless and the international community was not going to do anything, he was emboldened to continue on his insane rampage. The UN is passing resolution after resolution regarding inspections and the need for Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction, and Hussein is just sticking his tongue out. First, he says “unfettered inspections,” but then adds but of course his palaces (acres and acres of lands) are off limits, and this is off limit, and this is off limit, etc.
If just one country in the early 1930’s, soon after Hitler began enlarging his army, had the guts to stop it, the whole course of history may have been changed, and six million lives not needlessly lost. England was the strongest then, but we all know England’s history.
Now, if the UN proves itself as feckless as the League of Nations, I (and this is just my opinion) believe that the USA, being the strongest nation, not only may act, but should act. Sure lives will be lost, but how many will have been ultimately saved? Hitler and Hussein, both madmen.
There is only one thing these madmen understand: action, not words. It would be better, of course, if the UN would act, but there are too many countries on the Security Council that depend upon Iraq financially. Syria is on the Security Council and it has been supplying Iraq militarily in direct violation of one of the Security Council’s own resolution. Annan, IMHO, is the reincarnation of Chamberlain, if not worse.
Here’s a list of UN Security Resolutions with regard to Israel. There are a lot more than the two you’ve mentioned above. In fact, if you inspect this list carefully, you’ll note that in many cases, the resolutions are reiterations of earlier ones. Thus, resolution 799, condemning the Israeli deportation of Palestinian citizens from the West Bank, is merely a restatement of resolution 726, which is merely a reaffirmation of resolution 694, which calls upon Israel to respect resolution 681, and so forth – to 641, 636, 608, 607, and finally, 605 (which, incidentally, condemns the Israeli military for opening fire on protestors, ”resulting in the killing and wounding of defenceless Palestinian civilians”) these resolutions in turn referring to 592, 497, 465, and 446…
Obviously, what we have here is a decades-long pattern of Israeli defiance to UN Security Resolutions that completely dwarfs Iraqi non-compliance. So naturally, the question becomes: how come the Israelis can get away with it, but not the Iraqis?
I find no reference to Charter VI in the resolutions you’ve cited, by the way. In fact, 338 is a direct call for a cease-fire (in 1973), to be followed by an implementation of 242. So I’m at a loss as to the basis of your assertions – do you have a cite to back them up?
But the issue is a red-herring, anyway; with such a record of Israeli non-compliance to UN resolutions, clearly stronger resolutions are called for – resolutions under the auspices of Chapter VII. If the US really was interested in strengthening the UN, as El Jeffe and many others claim, it would be leading the rest of the world in that direction. What say we press for a resolution demanding Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories within 7 days, with a clause allowing for direct military intervention if they refuse to abide by the resolution? No?
I strongly disagree with your comparison of Germany in the 1930s and Iraq now, by the way. Back then Germany was an integrated member of the European community and an economic powerhouse of the first order. Iraq is backwards, deprived little 3rd world country, with one resource – oil. In all probability, Germany was the military of equal of any other European state by 1935 or 36. Had England chosen to launch a unilateral strike against the Germans at that time, it would simply have served as a pretext for Hitler to go to war under the guise of self-defense – by that point, after all, they had done little except rearm (correct me if I’m wrong). It would have also drawn Italy and possibly Japan into the war to defend the German Reich. By contrast, the military strength of the US dwarfs that of Iraq, and our technological advantage is so pronounced that we can strike more or less at will, without fear of suffering serious casualties as a result. In addition, Iraq is politically isolated, even in the Arab world, due to Hussein’s aggressive policies. In other words, to compare Hussein to Hitler in this context is, IMHO, to greatly exaggerate the threat Hussein poses.
*What are you on about here? What countries are ”financially depend” upon Iraq? As far as Syria is concerned, action should be taken to ensure they follow SC resolutions as well, but they have only one vote and no veto on the SC.
But also, to reiterate yet again, there are strong arguments for a military strike against Iraq. I still haven’t found any for unilateral US action, however.
Well, Barb, I would like to venture that there is indeed * some* validity to the 1930’s comparison. When you reverse the roles.
The League of Nations did protest against the re-armement.
Nazi-Germany replied:’ Are we not entitled to defend ourselves?’
When the protests continued they said: ‘Well go stuff yourselves then. The League of Nations is not in the interest of Nazi-Germany. We shall re-arm with our without your consent’
They left the League to its own devices and went on to bully other small nations.
PM Watch looks at the other side of the coin, the Palestinian side.
Anyhow they published the following list (which can be reprinted if the source is mentioned):
Barb also wrote:
Well, I think there was a little bit more lives that was needlessly lost???
Precisely the problem. Under the provisions of the Treaty of Versaille, Germany was prohibited from increasing its military past a certain point and in certain areas. They ignored their agreements as soon as Hitler took over and established a strong military force by 1935 or 1936.
Russia.
I think you have the situations confused. Germany left the League of Nations when it protested the invasion of Czechoslavkia. Nothing was said when they began to increase their military in 1933.
Okay, first you warn me not to believe everything I read in the newspapers…
Then you assure me that if I check the resolutions myself, I’ll discover that the UN can’t enforce them…
*I locate the resolutions but find no such requirement. Then, when I ask you to support your assertion, you cite a single report from an Israeli newspaper, in which we read:
*Well, I’ll be damned. Unnamed Israeli officials claim that the Security Council resolutions relating to Israel aren’t binding. Who’d a thunk it?
That’s certainly a strong argument in your favor, I guess. Tell, me barb, do they mean section 6, or Chapter 6? I dunno, me – I always get those two confused.
Should the fact that this particular site is running a banner ad that states: ”Great gift ideas for the holidays! … Israel Army Surplus!” make me even slightly suspicious of bias on their part, do you think?
It’s a biased cite, but Tony Blair agrees with the Israeli position. Be that as it may, talking about red herrings…Israel is not a threat to anyone other than the PA, and if the PA would quit its terrorist attacks, peace can reign. Arafat was offered practically everything, including the occupied areas. He rejected that and began anew his terrorism. However, that is not the topic. Some may claim Sharon is mad, but he is not. Hussein is, however. Mad with potential power. Israel has had nuclear capability for years. It has never used any of its weapons of mass destruction. Hussein has used his chemical and biological agents on his own people. His first attack against another nation was Kuwait. There he was repulsed. Hitler’s first attack against another nation was Czechoslavakia, and he was not repulsed, but appeased.
