What would the implications be if France and/or Russia use their veto on the UN Security Council, and the US and UK went ahead with an Iraqi campaign? Would this become the self-fulfilling prophecy of those who maintain that the UN is irrelevant? Would this lead to the dismantling of the UN? What would the implications be of a world without a UN?
My personal opinion is that the UK wouldn’t go to war if a second resolution is vetoed. British public opinion would be massively against it, and UK foreign relations would probably also be effected.
I’m not sure if the US would go it alone without the UK but i would think probably not. Not because they couldn’t, but because i think US public opinion would be sharply against it in that circumstance.
Well, the short answer is, IMHO, the implications are unknowable and undesirable.
Personally I think it’s too hypothetical, I cannot see Blair acting without a second Resolution and I cannot see the US public being comfortable with pre-emptive unilateral military action
Thus Bush needs Blair and Blair needs a second Res
(And as I know you’re familiar with the political scene, how about Blair being to Bush what Claire Short is to Blair; in shorthand and for the uniformed masses, the moral ‘legitimiser’).
Just to touch on the Veto – the veto is almost the only thing that makes France a player on the international diplomatic stage. And, quite possibly, it’s a one shot, throw away weapon – depending who’s in the White House at that time. Thus, it’s not something they’re going to use lightly, or, possibly, even under seriously heavy domestic (electorate) pressure.
As an aside, I think what appeals to me at the moment is the irony of a US president not best pleased with (even) the principle of an international body (in this case the UN) restricting his elbow room yet, at the same time, doing all he can to obtain Abstentions in the essential (to him) second Resolution: He needs the UN right now.
One would think, had he had better domestic support (for unilateral action) in the opinion polls, this would be have been the ideal occasion for a GOP president to tell the GodDamnYewNightedNations where to deposit its sanctimonious Resolutions – as it happens, the US public wants the moral comfort blanket of multilateral action apropos Iraq and the only way to get that (meaningfully) is to get a second Resolution enabling Blair and the like to participate in this ‘Axis of Allies’……or summin’….
OK, but given the hypothetical that they actually did do it…
UN resolutions are broken all the time, but the US is the mightiest country in the world - would its defiance destroy the UN?
I am intrigued by the irony of a situation where the US breaks a UN resolution in order to enforce UN resolutions. Would GWB dare to do this? If he did, how badly would it undermine his casus belli?
I guess we’re simultaneously into that old irony, L_C!
No, the UN would keep on going pretty much the same as it always has.
Marc
The UN won’t say no, in my opinion. The French wouldn’t dare veto the US on this, despite their newfound pacifism. Neither would China or Russia. I’m willing to bet Germany, when it becomes a temporary Security Council member, would be willing to concede.
That’s a piece of this that lurks darkly in the back of my mind.
Its is a dogma of “old timey” conservatism, the kind best represented by reprehensible Jesse Helms, that the UN was anathema, the darling of “fuzzy thinking One-Worlders” and a threat to the autonomy and sovereignty of the USA. It was not at all uncommon to come across the bumper sticker witticism “You Can’t Spell Communism Without “UN”!”
GeeDubya was marketed as a centrist and I, for one, more or less bought that line of Bushwah. I still prefered Gore, but was satisfied that Bush as an alternative wasn’t dreadful, merely the lesser of two choices. But his actual governance strategy is far, far to the right of anything he was willing to represent during the campaign.
I wonder, then, if this old shibboleth of the ancient Right has, in fact, been buried along with the “southern strategy” or if, in fact, this latest assault of the legitimacy of the UN doesn’t play directly to that theme?
It might be not only acceptable to the Bushistas that we might be forced to repudiate the UN, that may be one of the central goals.
If the UN goes along, Bush wins the international legitimacy to drape over his goals. The UN goes against US, or even attempts to constrain the US, the US withdraws and renders the UN moot. For reference, consider the US refusal to recognize a World Court as an arbiter and judge above its own soveriegnty.
It may be an act of sabotage on a grand scale.
Because the United States has a veto, as does the United Kingdom, the United Nations can’t really say no. The most that it can do is not say yes. That is, the Security Council cannot pass a resolution that prohibits the use of force in Iraq, because the United States would veto it. True, the Security Council might not pass a resolution that authorizes the use of force, particularly if France or Russia is prepared to use its veto. But if a new resolution authorizing the use of force is already doomed, then it won’t even be offered, and the United States will simply take the view (as it has already begun doing) that the existing resolutions already authorize the use of force.
Germany is already a temporary member. The Schröder government is in a bit of a bind: Gerhard Schröder has pledged his people not to vote yes, but OTOH has pledged the US certain support services and use of bases and airspace. This actually gives him an interest in the UN giving the US permission to attack, because an attack without UN authorization constitutes a war of aggression (according to what I have read from the magazines’ interviews with various constitutional legal experts), in which event German support as pledged would expose chancellor and defense minister to prosecution under section 80 of the German Criminal Code.
So I expect Germany to abstain.
The UN is only as relevant as nations make it. Especially the powerful ones. No, the UN won’t collapse. The United States has violated international law before, though admittedly attacking Iraq would be a larger violation. I think the damage to international law would be greater than to the UN as an institution. Someday the U.S. won’t be the world’s superpower and we’ll be running to the UN every time somebody screws us over.
The U.S. isn’t going to sit still for a second U.N. vote unless they already know how it’s going to come out. If they can’t get back-room commitments from the big five before a vote, they won’t seek one.
A good model for how this will play out is the Clinton administration’s handling of the Kosovo crisis. Clinton started out by wanting a vote in the Security Council and a U.N. mandate. But when it became clear that China was going to exercise a veto, Clinton ignored the U.N. and went around it.
The only way there will be a vote in the Security Council that vetos U.S. action would be if a country like France agrees not to veto, then goes ahead and does it anyway. If that happens, there will be hell to pay. The U.S. has lots of ways to punish ‘allies’ that deal behind its back. For example, the U.S. can start to emphasize NATO as its primary force-authorizing body. The U.N. can be marginalized to the point where the only thing France will ever get to veto again is the resolution declaring Bud Light to be less filling, and not great tasting.
And they will do what? Pass a resolution?
Under the Clinton administration our UN dues were not caught up or met, because of a lack of support for the UN. I personally support the UN, but this issue is going to have a big effect on the UN if a new resolution isn’t presented or is defeated.
That is the prevailing opinion and could very well be true. I would be hesitant to enter a war without the support of the UN.
However, all this talk is about what is going on with the U.S., the UK, France, Russia, Germany, the UN, etc., but nothing is said about what Iraq is going to do. Is this some all-inclusive mind blocking of an unpleasant issue?
If the UN doesn’t ratify multilateral action against Iraq, then the UK drops out, and the U.S. public opinion demands the troops be brought home. What then folks? Does Saddam decide that he doesn’t need WMDs anymore, since he no longer has to worry about those troublesome Americans? Is that why he has them or maybe he never had any? Are the inspectors there because of Saddam’s wish to comply or because the U.S. and UK started sending in troops? What is going to happen when he invades Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? What if he does start supplying terrorists? What will the UN do then? Anybody think this is of any importance?
Saddam is calling our bluff! and we are playing diplomatic games. **It is time to fish or stop cutting bait. **
[sup]And that last expression is the diplomatic version.[/sup]
This is a tired stereotype. What’s worse, is it is a stereotype that has never really been true and is absolutely untrue now.
The American power structure views the UN not with loathing, but with frustration and disappointment. During the cold war, the total inefficacy of the UN was accepted with resignation, given that that the Soviet Union had a veto in the council. Now, however, it’s a different story. The US genuinely wants the UN to get a backbone and take an active part in the world. However, the UN has consistently lived up to the worst expectations of its critics. It’s all very well to be in favour of world peace, but interminable dithering in the face of open contempt by proven bad guys makes the UN look ridiculous. I’m not just talking about Iraq, here. The UN has undermined itself on many other occasions, most notably in the Balkans.
If the UN is ever going to have an real relevance, it is going to have to establish one iron-clad rule. “We don’t say much, but what we do say, you WILL listen to. Defy the Security Council at your peril.” To the extent the UN has ever done this, it has done so only after severe arm-twisting by the US.
The only way the UN is ever going to become a player is if it is willing to enforce its decrees on those who defy it. If, for example, the Council drops the ball and does not pass a second resolution authorizing the use of force, the UN will be permanently labled a paper tiger regardless of what the US does. If the US goes ahead anyway, it will be irrefutably obvious that powerful countries can do what the want, regardless. If the US aborts its invasion, it will be irrefutably obvious that little countries can do what the want, regardless, because the Council hasn’t got the stomach to actually enforce its resolutions – I mean, come on, is there likely to ever be a more egregious, long-term case of open defiance than Iraq’s?
So, paradoxically, it is the US that is actually attempting to create a strong international legal regime and the French (among others) who are really yearning for the good old days of balance-of-power politics.
Has there ever been an instance of long-term, open defiance other than Iraq. Well, yeah, sure: Israel. More than once.
America isn’t interested in the sanctity of Security Council Resolutions, any more than we are interested in a World Court with any real clout. GeeDubya would be perfectly content to allow the UN to drape its legitimacy over his crusade. But its a bit hard to take him too seriously when he insists that he has some overiding right to proceed unilaterally if the UN shall fail to see the pure light of his truth.
The US has not the slightest intention of surrendering any power or authority to the UN. They might interfere! Its bad enough that they forget thier place and withold the unanimous approval and applause that is our due. What might they get up to if they had any genuine power?
Picture this: the General Assembly convenes, and by an overwhelming vote declares a pre-emptive war to be an act of aggression, and hence illegal. GeeDubya frowns and says “Well, I don’t agree, but you guys are the boss, so be it.”
On that day, I suggest you sink all available money in umbrella stocks, because when pigs fly umbrellas will be a very valuable item indeed!
If he ever did say that, he would (should) be impeached, post haste. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land; Not some collecton of malcontents.
And the Constitution says that treaties entered into by the United States are the supreme law of the land. That includes the UN Charter.
So the entire collection of non-US nations is a “collection of malcontents”, is it? Do you see any problem with other countries’ governments having the same attitude?
Article VI.
Measures voted on by France and PRC are not “…treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States…”
Where is the ‘treaty’ that we would be breaking, when we attack Iraq to disarm a bloody (and unfriendly) regime? The UN is more of a diplomat’s club then a ‘treaty’ it seems.
I fully expect each and every goverment to act in the best interests of their respective nations, within the confines of their capabilities. (I don’t expect Swaziland to attack Germany, even if it is somehow in their best interests).
The malcontents I refer to sit in the UN, not the citizenry of said nations. I have nothing against the French people (I like France!), but their UN representives are coniving weasels.