I guess then, Ravenman, I don’t see the point. If the US, Russia, Britian, France and China can and have all violated the Charter, but then turn around and enforce it selectively on OTHER nations because it serves their purpose at the time, or they are simply trying to twart other members of the UNSC, then why get all bent out of shape THIS time when the US did what its done in the past and what all those others have done in the past…and will probably do in the future? The only reason the Charter is used at all is for to big 5 to have either an ethical fig leaf to hide behind when they do what they were going to do anyway (if they can get it), something to be ignored or gotten around if they can’t, and something to beat up the other nations of the world (if they dont have nukes that is). Does this seem like a system that should be honored reguardless of circumstance? Why SHOULD nations like the US honor it if they feel that their best intersts are served by NOT honoring it? Again, I guess I just don’t get it.
I can understand your point about international law being important, but has the Charter EVER prevented a war that one of the big 5 REALLY wanted to have? Has it been effective at all in curbing any of them?
No, probably not, but countries don’t like to LOOK bad. They want to win the propaganda war if they can. And they don’t like to generally have things thrown back in their face…like past times when THEY were the ones that acted against the Charter.
I get what you’re saying. All I can say is that the UN was never designed to be a strictly democratic institution that actually values each member as equals. Note that the General Assemby basically has no power, and virtually every important decision comes from the UNSC, which is more or less a tool of the Great Powers.
I do think that reform of the Security Council is long overdue – the Cold War stacking of nations just isn’t realistic anymore. But there are countless parcels of international law that attempts to balance the reality of power with an ideal of an international civil society. One that pops to mind instantly, along with the UN Charter, is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: nuclear powers can keep their weapons, non-nuclear states forswear them, but with the inducement of transfer of peaceful nuclear technology.
The bottom line is that the UN system sees more value in keeping the Great Powers engaged in that body, rather than sanctioning them and risking the chance that they’ll just take their ball (and their economic, political, and military might) and withdraw from the UN.
What do the Great Powers get out of it? The chance to boss around smaller countries, so long as there is consesnus that such policy is correct.
I can’t think immediately of a war prevented by the UNSC that one of the P-5 wanted. Let me get back to you on that after some thought.
I disagree. With a certain veto from at least two permanent members, and several non-permanent members it wouldn’t have made any difference. Just more bad press.
The non-permanent members don’t have a veto. They can only vote against a resolution, which is not the same thing at all.
It would have been very significant from a diplomatic and PR point of view if the US government could have got a security council resolution with a majority of votes, but vetoed by France or Russia, and it would certainly have made Tony Blair’s life a lot easier then (and now). It would could have been presented - with some justification - as evidence of a broad international consensus behing armed intervention in Iraq, prevented from having effect only by the undemocratic machinations of the veto-wielding powers. The fact that they didn’t press the matter to a vote strongly suggests to me that they didn’t think they’d get a majority of the votes.