For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that Saddam has been actively hiding WMD and that eliminating him and the aforementioned WMD is in the USA’s best interest. Let us assume that the UN declines to authorize the force that would be needed to do so, in fact specifically condemns it.
The US clearly has the power to do it alone, whether the UN approves or not. As the sole superpower who’s gonna stop her? But, even assuming that such is justified, should she?
The image of a Mom spanking her child yelling “Don’t you hit your sister!” comes to mind. We condemn Iraq for ignoring UN resolutions but refuse to pay any attention to putative UN authority ourselves unless it serves our immediate interests to do so.
We would thus explicitly state, by action, that the UN is an irrelevant body. That the procedures of the UN are of no meaning. The biggest power is in control of making all the decisions; don’t worry, we’ll take care of everything. We’ll be a fair and benevolant imperial power. Trust me.
Is this the message that we want to send? Do we really want to throw out the UN as a legitimate means of resolving international disputes? And shout out to the world that the US is in charge now Baby!? Just because we can? Or does the immediate risk poised by Iraq not cross the line that is required before you throw out the baby with the bathwater?
The UN has been ineffective for years. How many lines in the sand must be drawn in order for an aberrant country to change its ways?
At some point, for the UN to remain relevant it must back up its collective decisions with a means to require compliance. Arm-twisting, pretty-please requests don’t work. Once polite compliance fails, the UN should proceed to the next step, ask its member countries to establish a bilateral military force and let them do the UN’s business. And this should not mean endless resolutions – do we or don’t we create a force? – do we or don’t we authorize their use? – yadda, yadda. Micro-manage doesn’t work. (We may find out this failure in short order with Rumsfeld’s micro-managing his officers with respect to the upcoming war with Iraq. The Joint Chiefs are already complaining the boss is meddling way too much.)
With the present crisis, the UN can pass resolution after resolution, but without taking the final step, where does it end?
On the contrary, if the UN is to be effectual, it must not be swayed by the wishes of the biggest member but respect the decisions of the member nations.
Those nations, including the United States, should respect those decisions.
Ah, CP I’m not supporting the current US UN attitude with my last post. I’m merely stating the UN appears to have a history of not committing itself to doing the job properly.
Notwithstanding the current crisis, the UN has had 12 years to get Iraq to comply, yet has avoided drawing one final line in the sand. Bush has seized the opportunity and plays bully games to force the UN to bring the matter to a close. I cannot agree with Bush’s tactics. I just wish the UN had the balls to make its decisions on its own long ago.
Ah, CP I’m not supporting the current US UN attitude with my last post. I’m merely stating the UN appears to have a history of not committing itself to doing the job properly.
Notwithstanding the current crisis, the UN has had 12 years to get Iraq to comply, yet has avoided drawing one final line in the sand. Bush has seized the opportunity and plays bully games to force the UN to bring the matter to a close. I cannot agree with Bush’s tactics. I just wish the UN had the balls to make its decisions on its own long ago.
well, since its conception the UN has been a pupet whos strings have been controlled by the US, thats one of the reasons the US joined it, and did not join the League of Nations that Wilson, a former US president established. The US has used the UN to get other nations to go along with US wishes, because most nations if they were asked to do something for the US’s benifit would simply say no. When the UN, which most nations believe is a means of equality between the nations of the world, asks for the same thing its hard to really say no since they dont want to lose their role in the UN. As of recent years the UN has begun to show signs that it doesnt care for US opinion or aid either giving or getting, so we see the US less inclined to support or pay much attention to the UN. Thats why Bush gives ultimatives, and thats why the UN will not act.
Duckster’s position remarkably misconceives the UN’s role. Check out www.un.org The organisation runs on consensus amongst equal sovereign nations, in the true Westphalain tradition. “Decision-making” is something its not well suited to do. The General Assembly is more of a forum than a decision-making body.
Incidentally, the UN has a means to require complaince - the Military Staff Committee. But since no one, least of all the US, wants its troops under a UN banner to be lead by foreign generals, the MSC has been inoperative since the UN’s formation. Representatives of the MSC still meet every month, from memory, but they don’t discuss much.
Ah, but the op is not asking what the UN should do, it assumes that the UN should enforce its resolutions with force if needed. (The UN’s lack of gonads, whether they be balls or ovarian tissue is not this intended debate) Rather it asks what if the UN does not do what the US “knows” she should do? Does the US declare to the world that the UN is only an authority if she does what the US wants her to do, and that the US is “above the law”, that a new imperial age has truly begun?
I’m not so sure misconceives as my opinion is ignorant. Unfortunately, there are quite a few other folks all in this same ignorant boat.
I still stick to my shit or get off the pot statement, though. It’s fine to debate ad infinitum but at the end of the day, debating on the street corner doesn’t address that the issue the point is to cross the street.
Well even if the UN agreed to an invasion of Iraq I still think it would a bad idea from the narrow pov. of American national interest.
But assuming for the sake of argument that an invasion was in the American interest would it make sense it ignore the UN? Only if the threat was clear-cut and serious. The whole issue is moot anyway because in such a case the UN would almost certainly give its support quite easily as happened in the war against the Taliban. Contrary to right-wing propoganda most countries in the UN aren’t actively anti-American and have no interest in seeing the US attacked.
In this case where we are talking about biological and chemical weapons which Saddam has possessed for more than 20 years and where even the CIA thinks he is unlikely to use them unless attacked first, I think the widespread skepticism around the world is perfectly sincere as well as being justified. The administration has made a case that Iraq is violating resolutions but not that those violations represent a serious national security threat to the US. So people are naturally suspicious about US motives.
What would happen if the US attacks anyway without UN support? I don’t think the UN will become irrelevant and both the US and the UN will continue to need each other in the future.
However it will sharply increase the cost to the US of the whole enterprise. It will increase the resentment and hatred in the region for the US increasing terrorist “blowback”. And it will increase the difficult of managing Iraq after war.
Your analogy doesn’t hold: you think there is a pot, and there is not.
The relevancy of the UN, and particularly the Security Council, is that its approval of an attack gives the attack legitimacy, an air of lawfulness by consensus.
The UN cannot enforce its resolutions, because of sovereignty issues. Resolutions, in this case especially, provide justification for actions by its members, not by the UN.
