How could the Security Council ignore the vote of the United States?
Marc
Why should it be difficult? Take a vote. If it’s 4-1 and the U.S. is the 1, the vote passes. Playing by the rules should work in both directions, shouldn’t it? The U.S. managed to ignore the Security Council without much difficulty, why should the reverse be any more difficult?
To my mind, the UN is a mechanism that brings people in a dispute to the table and tries to settle it with diplomacy instead of bloodshed. They may not always succeed, they may not always act as one mind, but they’re always driven by the desire to avoid violence and resolve things peacefully.
Anyone who opposes that goal is someone I am concerned about.
First off, the UN is much more than just the Security Council and the General Assembly. There are a whole host of organisations doing very commendable work to make our world a better place for future generations. Irrespective of global politics, these organisations are inexpendable. In that respect, the UN is good.
Next up, I’m all for greater representation at the UNSC, based on GDP and population, as suggested by bump. In my eyes, that means Brasil and India. It is inevitable that one or both nations will eventually be a part of the UNSC - and only in its expanded form will it gain greater legitamacy as representative of the interests of the world.
IMO, and as stated before, imposing punitive sanctions on the US won’t work. In fact, they’d be counter-productive to the world at large, seeing as so many economies are tied into that of the US’s. Heck, punitive sanctions imposed by a host of countries on India after she tested nuclear devices didn’t work, so they sure as hell won’t work on the US.
I was going to suggest that the UNSC should have a majority voting system, i.e. require a majority to veto a resolution. This would theoretically ensure that the interests of a single country do not stand paramount.
But the fact remains that as long as the interests of the lone superpower (or, IMO in this case, of those running said superpower) supercede ‘international law’, no amount of debating or punitive action is going to work, and that’s the bottom line.
I’ve said it before on these boards, and I’m saying it again - this US administration is scary, and the quicker it goes, the better it’ll be - both for the US as well as for the rest of the world. Having said that, I’m shocked that GWB still enjoys so much support in the US - are you people blind?!
So the answer to the US (maybe) violating the UN charter is for the UN to turn around and do the same thing? I just don’t see this is a practical sanction against the United States since the United States is to powerful to be ignored.
Marc
To answer The Tooth, I think it’s going to be difficult because the US will do whatever it wants, and it will always have a “Coalition of the Willing” behind it.
I think the question that needs answering is whether this is the new face of the US (“you’re with us or against us”), or is it only this administration. If what we’ve seen over the past two years is what US policy is going to be for the forseeable future, then maybe there is a need for a redrafting of The Rules.
Which brings it back around to square one - who’s to say the US will agree to the new rules?
It still irks me that americans have such a dislike of the UN… especially when, like sailor and history have pointed out, it has served the USA’s interest very well. Never mind that many of the “ideals” and “ethics” defended by the UN are very western and american too.
The fact that so many countries deemed as backward or less than democratic want to be part of the UN and are willing to collaborate more than anything helps make the world a better place. So called rogue nations seeking legitimacy and are willing to mend their ways any amount is good in my view. The UN allows for a perception or willingness to seek consensus. While the, sometimes mad, directives of the Oval office have nothing democratic about them in comparison. I’d rather have a bad consensus than a dictatorial one. The US is no more the benign giant.
Naturally like any bureaucratic institution the UN has its problems... it sure needs some reforming and more efficiency. Xtisme's OP does sound UN bashing... but its the security aspect that has left the UN seemingly innefective... and mostly due to Bushie Jr's efforts. Now more than ever Russia and Europe embrace the UN as a means of counterbalancing US hegemony. Had Bush II used the UN and diplomacy we might have seen a much better and different outcome to the Iraq debacle. So what can the UN do against a US president that chooses to take the hard way into things ? Very little in fact. Chechyna is another example of how things get out of hand... but veto power prevents interference.
Can/should the UN get its own set of teeths ? No. That would make the UN way more politicized and dangerous. Its better to rely on member nations. A truly international and effective military would cost horrendous amounts of money... and since money comes from member nations the big ones could sabotage military efforts simply by stopping payments.
Newsweek put the UN's role well in one sentence: When a nation wants to speak to the whole world... they go to the UN. For better or worse its a sort of Forum and place to present things to the world... to defend or attack ideas and interests. Without this kind of forum do you think the world is better off ?The UN is a good place to organize aid and humanitarian intervention. Its also a good place for the world to make its views be heard, such as on the issue of Iraq, Israel etc. It gives more legitimacy to actions if approved by the UN. The GW2 would f.ex. not have looked as bad for the US if they had been granted a UN approval. Without the UN the US has no one to share blame with except individual countries (UK, Italy, Poland and Denmark). A Politically motivated arab with a thirst for vengeance might think twice if the world had united as one like it did in Afghanistan.
**
It isn’t that most Americans dislike the United Nations it’s that we have very little respect for it. At least when it comes to military matters or sanctions/condemnations of certain actions or nations.
Not counting loonies who think the U.N. is going to take over the US.
**
It’s simply a forum for them to push their own agendas. Same as everyone else.
**
Were we ever the benign giant? I think not.
**
Here we come to the real issue. The less powerful nations see the UN as a way to equalize power. I suspect that if the EU continues to be successful they might not worry so much about the UN either.
**
The outcome hasn’t been determined yet. I find it hilarious that leaders of nations who opposed the war congratulated the US on capturing Saddam. Why would they congratulate the US for doing something they all think was wrong and possibly illegal?
I agree, as a forum the UN is great. It even has some great organizations such as WHO.
Marc
So many people concentrate on the forum aspect of the UN and forget that the UN was originally founded as a security organistion.
It has always failed at keeping security except when the US provided the bulk of the forces to do so, as well as prodding the UN to action.
Still its better to have a UN umbrella than not… especially when the US tries to go to far. Otherwise there is little reason for people to agree/help the US.
Well, the Iraqi Governing Council is not at all happy with the UN right now, and Foreign Minister Zabari scolded them pretty thoroughly on Tuesday:
The article itself is entitled “Iraqi Official Criticizes Security Council for Quibbling and Failing to Help Depose Hussein”.
"He chided its members for bickering over his country’s future instead of coming to its immediate assistance…‘Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people,’ Mr. Zebari said.
Heh. Anyway, I think what this exposes is that Zebari echoes many Americans in that we are more interested in RESULTS than the PROCESS. The UN in general is an organization I support and I think the world would be worse off without it; but I get the strong feeling that a lot of our friends use it as an excuse–as long as they go to the GC and pass a strongly worded resolution they can then sit back, contended, and not DO anything to carry it out. Many Americans see that as hypocrisy, especially from rich nations who then fail to back up their words with money or troops.
D’oh!
Do you regard East Timor as a failure?
From RM
Sailor was pointing out (somewhat truthfully) that the US created the UN to be a tool they could USE to control and legitimize its actions (you can lump in the other 4 members as well). So, in a sense, its doing exactly what it was designed to do. Most Americans see the UN as weak and fairly ineffectual as far as security goes (it does do other things very laudably…humanitarian aid and the like). Not a stretch, because when it comes to the powerful countries (not just the US) it IS ineffectual.
From RM
If I wanted to bash the UN, I would have come right out and bashed it. I’m asking questions here, not making statements in the OP. Reguardless of MY views on the subject (which are desidedly mixed atm), I think my OP asked fairly balanced questions…that was my intent anyway.
I presented questions on both sides, trying to bring out some discussion on the organization. Why is that a bad thing? Is the UN above reproach? We can’t talk about it? Has it no flaws we could discuss? Are there no alternatives we could explore?
If the US can take the hammering it gets constantly on this board, I figure the UN can stand some DISCUSSION about it too. Thats not a bash.
From RM
Then the UN will never be able to curb the more powerful countries. Maybe there is no realistic alternative, as the powerful nations will surely resist change and the lessening of their power on the worlds stage.
If thats ok, then fine. But when something like the US in Iraq or NATO in Bosnia happens, we shouldn’t all be surprised and/or upset, as the system favors (or at least doesn’t punish) powerful nations or organizations from acting as THEY think best (unilaterally, in small groups, or large organizations like NATO), not as the UN thinks best. Individual countries or alliances will have to make up their own minds about the actions of a powerful country like the US and decide what they will do about it (if anything).
Maybe I’m wrong about this, but it seems that you (and several other posters) feel that its mainly the US that violates the charter, or manipulates the SC through its veto, and if only the US would work and play well, all would be peaches and cream with the world.
ALL of the nations on the SC do and have done basically the same thing as the US is currently doing or did in the past…they are ALL guilty of the same thing, they all manipulate the system in the same way, and they are all above reproach due to their power.
They all used the UN and the Charter it in the same way…when its for them, they use it as a banner of legitimacy. When against, or inconvient, they bypass it, circumvent it, or ignore it. Think about who’s on the SC…Russia, China, Britain, France and the US. Were you personally as outraged or fearful that they were lose cannons (as you are with the US atm) when any of the OTHER members did similar things, RM?
From RM
I agree…such a forum is a good thing IMO. For the most part, the UN is a good thing, though a flawed tool IMO, because there is no way for it to curb the major powers if they really want to act in their own interests.
-XT
The idea that you can build a global legal framework and not have
- An elected executive
- A police force
- A judicial system
strikes me as passing odd. The ICC would almost appear to cover point 3, however, as I asked in a previous thread, who arrests the violators? The issue is that the majority of nations are not democratic, while those that are the populace has no say in what is discussed. Legitimacy does not simply arrive on the basis of a written letter. It arrives through the popular acceptance of actions. So we need an elected UN.
Ok so let’s reform the UN. It nearing the holidays, the office is comatose and I’m tired of producing other people’s vapourware. 
- Split the General Assembly in two.
a. Assembly based on 1 country 1 vote
b. Senate based on GDP per capita, with the smallest members holding 1 vote and scaled up from there.
c. Requires a 50% + 1 in both houses to pass motions
i. Requires 2/3s in Assembly & 50% + 1 in Senate for deadlocked SC motions
d. Members of both houses are elected by their respective countries for period of 4 and 6 years respectively. - Reorganization of membership rights for members not on the SC
a. Full Member. Democratic, abides by basic human rights (Iceland)
b. Partial Member. Attempts to adhere to basic human rights (Turkey)
c. Observer: All others.
d. Membership is based on application by country and acceptance by 2/3 of the Assembly. No Senate vote required. - Voting rights of members
a. Military, full members only
b. Economic, Full and Partial members only
c. Health, Environment : Full, Partial and Observers - UN motions are legally binding within the Full and Partial membership countries. i.e. it must be specifically written into the Full and Partial members legal framework that the passed motions of the UN have full legal weight within the country.
- The Senate is not allowed to introduce motions
- SC make up remains the 5 permanent members (PM) and 14 rotating members (RM)
a. Permanent members possess 14 votes
b. Rotating members possess 1 vote
c. Motions pass on majority vote.
d. Deadlocks go to Assembly and the Senate, however SC members are not allowed to vote.
Nice job Grey. I like the idea of putting it on a democratic framework, and having contingent membership and various levels of membership.
It puts a check on the SC members, and allows other countries more representation. Sounds pretty good to me. Wonder if something like this is possible or if it could ever happen…
-XT
marc: I think the U.N. should start doing what the rest of its members want regardless of the wishes of the U.S. Other nations have had their U.N. status changed based on their behaviour, haven’t they? It’s not so much about getting the U.S. to bend to the U.N.'s will (fat chance) as it is as devaluing the U.S.'s opinion in U.N. matters. I have no problem believing that other nations use the U.N. to further their own agendas, but it’s the U.S. that saw fit to break charter and invade another sovereign nation. That’s going too far.
gouda: I doubt this “with us or against us” would be U.S. policy for the forseeable future. Four years, eleven months at worst.
Thanks xtisme. I think that we need to evolve the UN. A radical restructuring would trigger far too many dug in heels. By leaving SC members alone (despite not fitting the Full Membership criteria as China would) you remove that issue. By dropping the current number of votes a Permanent member gets (14 instead of 15) you can argue that the democratization requires the permanent members be magnanimous. All we’ve done is reduce the veto power slightly.
But ultimately to me the UN needs to become a democratic institution of democratic nations. Membership should confer advantage making achieving UN membership a desirable goal of countries.
the Tooth the US is hardly the first to ignore the UN. You could say that at least they show up and and pretend to care. Others simply don’t. Look at China and Tibet, India and Pakistan, USSR and Afghanistan, etc. etc.
Xtisme,
Well do you think the Veto powers can do anything they want ? Do you think they are totally beyond the powers of the UN ? In a sense they are not… the US is having more difficulties and Iraqi are more skeptical due to that little dirty word: Legitimacy. If the US didn’t think legitimacy was important they wouldn’t concoct the “Coalition of the Willing” with some of the hardest arm twisting seen in many years.
The UN might not have teeth... but withouth the UN approval you don't get the luster and the nice wax finish when pushing your agenda. If no UN existed you might see world powers pushing others around way more easily. The US and NATO might have invaded a way larger number of countries... Call the UN a formalization of legitimacy and that means that up to an extent countries no matter how powerful will seek some kind of consent and consensus. (Some people of course don't...)
Xtsime question: Are all veto countries responsible for similar veto and power abuses within the UN structure ? Yes.
Have they used them as much as the US ? I think not. The US alone with Bush has so blantantly pushed the UN into its current situation… and needlessly. What is the point of “declaring” the Iraq Invasion illegal ? Push the US to leave the UN ? No wonder so many are wary of Bush… if he can’t work in a framework that favors him like the UN… never mind other diplomacy. Of course the US did use some technicalities to justify the invasion…