I’m just wondering why some people seem to think that it is important or necessary for the US to get the approval of the UN Security Council before taking military action against Iraq. Many of those who seem to be making this pitch have argued extensively on other occasions that the UN is merely a rubber stamp of US foreign policy and that UN support for a US policy is therefore meaningless. Now, all of a sudden, the beliefs of the Members of the Security Council seem to be taking on some importance for these people.
Any US attack on Iraq will have some degree of international support and will be supported by some coalition. England is obviously on board. Reuters reports today that both Bulgaria and Romania have offered bases and use of their airspace for attacks. I can’t recall which ones off the top of my head, but other countries have offered bases and airspace as well.
While UN Security Council approval is good propaganda to use and provides some political cover, it obviously doesn’t mean a whole lot. After all, the present sanctions are the sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council but most anti-sanctions people prefer to call them US sanctions and believe the US is solely to blame for them. I’m sure a UN Resolution authorizing a military strike on Iraq would be viewed in the same way.
Here’s a prediction too. When the attack comes, Russia will be part of the coalition because they will have extracted as many claims to Iraqi oil and participation in future oil production as they can. Someone will call this a US bribe rather than recognize it as very shrewd maneuvering by the Russians to accomplish something in their national interest.
It is another step into a future world. People around the globe intuitively sense that we live in a very small world and actions of states now need to be by "consensus". At this point in time US is the only state that can act unilaterally. Europeans do not even have the hardware to take action outside of europe. They could not do anything about Saddam even if they wanted to if left on their own. That goes for Russia and China. So how independent should a soverign state be in this day and age? I think the unease being expressed internationally is an attempt to answer that question. I think we, in the US, do need friends but we should make darned sure that we do not accept the supermacy of "international" law just because it sounds good. The structure of the UN needs to be looked at very closely, and modified to reflect the needs of the world today and not the fifty years ago one.
I think your notion that the US does not need to act within the auspices of the UN makes a mockery of what democracy stands for.. It will send out the wrong signal to other nations who will believe that they are free to act as they see fit and take military action against other nations or within their own borders.
Imagine if the UN was to be permanently sidelined by the US, so that it eventually becomes ineffective and defunct... in that case all the UN diplomats may as well pack their bags and return home. I wonder how many regional wars would envelope the entire world if this was to happen.
myvoice. Whether they implement another resolution or not and whether it includes military intervention SHOULD only be decided by UN diplomats and their respective Governments and not by Cowboy's from Texas.
Rightly or wrongly, UN is there for a reason. And the reason is to allow countries to resolve their differences by dialogue. Many times dialogues fail (like in 1990) in which case if UNSC approves, UN can launch military strikes.
Of the permanent members of UNSC, Russia and China have finally come out opposing any military attacks on Iraq. France has pissed off US by asking for two UN resolutions instead of one. There is a reason why all these countries are against US stand.
If we agree to US' logic, that it has a right to attack Iraq (even if the rest of the world does not agree) then what is stopping any other country in the world to use the same logic and launch attacks on other countries? Its a recipe for chaos. I wonder why you and others who support US policy are not being far-sighted enough to see through this.
Iraq has neither threatened US nor attacked any US interests in the last many years. US is fighting Al-Qaida, and most observers can understand that (Sep 11). It is also clear that Al-Qaida's sole raison d'etre is and it was essentially formed on the basis of their dislike for Saddam for invading Kuwait and thereby allowing US troops an opportunity to land in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. That Saddam will embrace them back is not beyong imagination of a sharp novelist, but there is no evidence for that, and as such this theory is extremely shaky.
US Administration is crying hoarse in the media to portray Iraq as some kind of mad bull who is about to launch the trigger for an attack on US, whereas there is nothing of that sort to back up such doomsday scenarios. The whole fuss is created by Bush Admininstration to rile up the public ahead of mid-term poll. Lack of common villain hurts the incumbant when economy is showing no signs of recovery and the last terrorist attack is almost 13 month old, with no new attack in sight. Catching bearded-fellows and passing them off as sleeper cells about to launch Armeggedon is not flying in the public minds, as a means to catapult the sagging ratings of Bush Jr. Tough but true.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
I think your notion that the US does not need to act within the auspices of the UN makes a mockery of what democracy stands for.. It will send out the wrong signal to other nations who will believe that they are free to act as they see fit and take military action against other nations or within their own borders.
Imagine if the UN was to be permanently sidelined by the US, so that it eventually becomes ineffective and defunct... in that case all the UN diplomats may as well pack their bags and return home. I wonder how many regional wars would envelope the entire world if this was to happen.
myvoice. Whether they implement another resolution or not and whether it includes military intervention SHOULD only be decided by UN diplomats and their respective Governments and not by Cowboy's from Texas.
[/QUOTE]
India should ask for permission from the UN before attacking Pakistan next time ;)
DHP, this is not how wars are initiated... Did Iraq ask for the UNs permission before invading Kuwait?
"I’m just wondering why some people seem to think that it is important or necessary for the US to get the approval of the UN Security Council before taking military action against Iraq."
MV: I think it's hypocritical to take any military action (without UN approval), while citing Iraq's violation of UN resolutions as the primary reason for doing so.
Furthermore, I believe most Americans (including myself) are uncomfortable with the idea launching an attack on another nation that has not been proven to pose a direct threat.
If this thing were to drag out in the slightest, or if it were to cause an increase in attacks on US interests worldwide by Islamic terror groups, then it will definitely get ugly here in the US.
Spock, Youve obviously misunderstood whats being discussed here… the issue is about whether the UN will be sidelined in the coming days and the effects this will have on regional conflicts around the world..
Stu:
I think you’re wrong about being in the majority of US public opinion. I think most Americans believe Saddam to be a direct threat … (not necessarily to attack us, our allies and/or our interests today or tomorrow; but soon enough unless he is dealt with). However, that’s not the real issue. Just because someone (either you or I) is in a majority doesn’t make the majority’s view correct. Your comment regarding attacking without UN support while using violations of UN resolutions as a basis therefore is a really good one. I’d prefer the administration just rely on the fact that Saddam is a dangerous madman who must be removed from power rather than point to violations of UN resolutions as a basis for action.
Faisal:
Your premise that “the rest of the world does not agree” is just plain wrong. The US may not be able to obtain the unanimous consent of the UN Security Council, but that is hardly “the rest of the world.” I mentioned three countries in particular that support the US position and have offered some assistance. There are others but I don’t recall which countries have offered bases and flyover rights off the top of my head.
DHP:
You write: “Imagine if the UN was to be permanently sidelined by the US, so that it eventually becomes ineffective and defunct... in that case all the UN diplomats may as well pack their bags and return home. I wonder how many regional wars would envelope the entire world if this was to happen.”
You sound very much like George W. He said something similar. If the UN is not willing to enforce its Resolutions by military force, it is ineffective and for all practical purposes irrelevant and defunct. Any country that would place its defense and national security interests within the authority of a UN that has no teeth and no intent to act is committing national suicide. I didn’t vote for any UN diplomats and/or any of their respective Governments to protect me and my country. As a nation, we voted for your Texas cowboy to do so. If he won’t do it, we’ll elect someone else next time who will.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Faisal:
Your premise that “the rest of the world does not agree” is just plain wrong. The US may not be able to obtain the unanimous consent of the UN Security Council, but that is hardly “the rest of the world.” I mentioned three countries in particular that support the US position and have offered some assistance. There are others but I don’t recall which countries have offered bases and flyover rights off the top of my head.
[/QUOTE]
Three out of 180 odd countries of the world is really sad. From a US point of view. Compare that to 1990, when there was hardly a voice opposing military action against Iraq. Reason is clear. At that time, it was a direct and immediate threat. There is no such direct threat now. There is not a single proper evidence that Iraq is even threatening US.
"What if" scenarios are aplenty. You must have seen the movie "Conspiracy Theories" which abounds with all sorts of doomsday scenarios. Responsible governments in the world go by hard evidence, not by conspiracy theories of "what a mad man Saddam will do". This is plain wrong. Tell us what direct attacks Iraq has carried out against US in the last year? Forget direct attacks against US, tell us any direct attacks against any allies of US anywhere in the world by the Saddam regime. None! Nada! Zilch!
Stu's point is very good. From a moral point of view, US has strung itself out like a sitting duck. On one hand it is pretending to be the sole custodian for dignity of UN saying Iraq has violated its sanctity by not adhereing to UN resolutions, and on the other hand, like a drunk bully (drunk with power, i.e.) it says, even if UN doesn't authorize us, we will still launch an attack on Iraq. In three words, the message is "Screw You, UN!". This is a shameful attitude for a country that aspires to lead the world in all matters. It is more a shame for US diplomacy to be so isolated in the world, that its supporters have to struggle to find three friendly countries in the world who agree to this course of action.
Compare that to September 12, 2001, where the sympathies of all countries of the world were with USA. It still is, in its war against Al-Qaida. But not for a war in Iraq. Its just plain unfortunate. Innocent people in Iraq are condemned to suffer so that 3 more Republicans can get elected to US Senate. What a pity!
Anyone remember League of Nations and why it got sidelined eventually.
The issue is why is France one of the 5 permanent members of the SC and not Germany or Japan or the European Union for that matter. UN is an outdated institution that needs to be resturctured to be revitalized. Bush is correct in challenging it to live upto its responsibilites or to get out of the way. UN is not saying that Saddam does not have to disarm, it is merely trying to "be nice". Resolutions that have been flouted in the past by Saddam, don't need to be changed? No penalty specified if Saddam does not comply? US should insist on a new resolution with teeth. War is the last resort, but if the threat is not credible Saddam will not listen but will keep playing games. If UN cannot agree then US congress should very seriously think about wether we should belong to an ineffectual debating society.
For the sake of argument, I have no problem with a complete over-haul of UN. Yeah, lets do that. Get rid of the stupid veto system. Give all countries of the world, one vote. Majority rules.
After all, as US, the champion of democracy all over the world, says endlesslessly, "democracy is cure of all ills". Well, guess what buddy... Democracy means one person one vote. It doesn't matter if that person is a millionaire or has 100 body guards. One person, one vote. One country, one vote.
More than this farce, what is needed is a sense of balance and morality. "Might is right" and "Law of the Jungle" are two phrases which have now been adopted by the Bush Administration. Its not to say, that whatever we say here will stop the F-15's from dropping bombs over Baghdad. No, it won't. Sadly. But anyone can see the changing shifts in world's geo-political alliances. Germans, French and Scandinavians, once the truest allies of the US are now distancing themselves fast. East Europe and Russia are also firmly on the other end of the scale. China had always looked at US with suspicion. Saudi Arabia and other monarchs of the middle east who were the best buddies of Washington in early 1990's are now accused of accessories to terrorism against US. Africa has more grievances against US than ever before. The changing tunes of world's diplomatic scales is clearly visible to everyone.
In the short term, the US Administration, can remain oblivious to all that. Drunk in its military prowess. But the realization of isolation will come sooner rather than later. The greatest empires in the history of the world had fallen. US is no exception. That we'll be witnessing such a major event in our life-times will be truly a memorable experience. US decision-makers will do themselves a big big favor if they read a bit of history and figure out the reasons why and how, the huge, seemingly undefeatable regimes in the world collapsed. History predicts future. Its so true.
Since when did anyone pay attention to the UN??? They have always been ignored, and no one consults them before a grand invasion… If it were so effective, we wouldnt be seeing all this mess thats been going on…
One problem with the consensus based approached via decisioning through a majority voting aproach is that not all countries are created or are equal. As hard as that might be for some to swallow, Malawi cannot and should not have the same voice or decisioning power as Russia or the US.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
One problem with the consensus based approached via decisioning through a majority voting aproach is that not all countries are created or are equal. As hard as that might be for some to swallow, Malawi cannot and should not have the same voice or decisioning power as Russia or the US.
[/QUOTE]
Do you see Malawi as a permanent member of the security councill?
Spock, I am not sure if you are even following the argument here. Your input, nevertheless, remains highly insightful.
Chaltahai... no I am not advocating such farcial measures. It was just to show-case the absurdity of the idea. Democracy is often presented as the end-all be-all solution of all ills. Its not. The point remains that giving veto-powers to victors of WWII continues to be a stupid idea. If and when someone decides to re-vamp the UNO, this thing needs to be on the fore-front. Do we need veto powers? Probably not.
This will be a moot point, if the mightiest military powers display a little more morally acceptable positions in international conflicts. At the very least, the opinion of majority of world's population (and those representing them) should not be allowed to be over-ruled by the minority just because the minority have weapons of mass destruction and are willing to use them to further their own domestic political agendas. This is the most unfortunate side of this conflict.
Right now, it is obvious that US is adopting this posture because it feels being the mightiest military powerhouse it can and should be allowed to do whatever it deems fit, world opinion notwithstanding. Its patently clear that when the same argument will come back and bite them, they will not be able to legitimize their nefarious designs by cloaking them under the authority of UNSC or even NATO.
US would not be going through all the discussion right now if it was "drunk on its prowess" and not caring about others opinions. The simple fact is that it cares a lot and hence it is negotiating, which unfortunately will get labeled "bribes, etc" as myvoice pointed out originally. The simple matter is that we do not have a working international system right now. UN is barely functiong. It is also clear that US can and must make decisions that affect the whole world. The international order is not designed for this type situation. UN was designed for a multipolar world and not a dominating single power. US has no interest in an empire, but without an appropriate international order that works it is difficult to get a consensus. One country one vote is ridiculous and would never work. The differences between US and the russians for example are minor. I agree with myvoice, russians are merely trying to negotiate commitments upfront. Morality has no place or basis in international relations! States and systems are not individuals and are not ruled by individual morality. The relations have to be based upon clearly defined interests. Dragging morality into how states behave merely clouds history and decision making. If US was not interested in working within international law, why would it be spending so much time trying to get other countries on board. US will not yield veto power to the UN security council when it comes to its interests. UN can be brought to a standstill by a veto from any one of its five permanent SC members. Look at Kashmir issue for example. What US is saying should be clearly understood: Saddam has been yanking UN security council directives for the last 12 years and getting away with it. After 9/11 US has decided that it is "suicidal" for it to allow Saddam to proceed with flouting the directives and arming itself. So if UN does not get serious about enforcing its directives by authorizing clear cut penalties then it should go the way of League of Nations!! If it is serious, then an unambiguous resolution should be passed. US would be extremely happy if the other members took it upon themselves to enforce the directives, and allowed it to sit this one out. The fact is that no one else has the capacity to enforce any directive without US.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Spock, I am not sure if you are even following the argument here. Your input, nevertheless, remains highly insightful.
Chaltahai... no I am not advocating such farcial measures. It was just to show-case the absurdity of the idea. Democracy is often presented as the end-all be-all solution of all ills. Its not. The point remains that giving veto-powers to victors of WWII continues to be a stupid idea. If and when someone decides to re-vamp the UNO, this thing needs to be on the fore-front. Do we need veto powers? Probably not.
This will be a moot point, if the mightiest military powers display a little more morally acceptable positions in international conflicts. At the very least, the opinion of majority of world's population (and those representing them) should not be allowed to be over-ruled by the minority just because the minority have weapons of mass destruction and are willing to use them to further their own domestic political agendas. This is the most unfortunate side of this conflict.
Right now, it is obvious that US is adopting this posture because it feels being the mightiest military powerhouse it can and should be allowed to do whatever it deems fit, world opinion notwithstanding. Its patently clear that when the same argument will come back and bite them, they will not be able to legitimize their nefarious designs by cloaking them under the authority of UNSC or even NATO.
[/QUOTE]
Faisal, all Im saying is, the UN was and has been sidelined in such matters and I wont be surprised if the US goes ahead with the attacks without their consent...
G. Bush has already said that UN must stand along the US, or else step aside. So it has already been etched in as a unilateral move by the US. Now if the UN joins in, which it eventually will, thanks to hefty bullying and blackmail, that will provide america with the 'legitimacy' it needs.
When you are the sole superpower of the world, you can do anything. Vetos from the security council dont mean anything, let alone a vote.
In the Economist today, the wonks argue that the resolution should not be about weapon's inspection but about disarmament of Iraq with a condition of use of force to achieve that multilaterally. This is the best thing I have heard since The Stones in the Garden.
Spock, Youve obviously misunderstood whats being discussed here… the issue is about whether the UN will be sidelined in the coming days and the effects this will have on regional conflicts around the world..