The UN - has it lost its teeth?

[rmcrobertson]

Irrelevant, Sparky.

The point is that the United States--us--launched a war in direct and knowing defiance of the UN Charter, which we signed.

Or did you and others NOT think, as the war started, something like, "Good. SCREW the UN, and their rules. This is self-defense, and I don't care at all about international law?" Hm? Certainly you and others have argued precisely this on Martial Talk.

And it was done on the grounds of immediate national emergency, of, "clear and present danger," grounds that you and a lot of others took as much more important than any namby-pamby waiting around for the UN to come to a decision (they already had, actually--it just wasn't the one we wanted), or for some sort of frogified negotiations process that might take six months. Am I wrong? Nope.

Not that it matters now, but a theoretical point--one of the reasons we obey the law is to PROTECT ourselves, especially from a rush to vigilante action that leads into a worse mess than the previous one.

I might add that this is hardly the only time that the Bush government has basically said, "Well, screw THAT," to international law and treaties. The most-prominent example is the ABM treaty, but there have been a number of others.

 

[Flatlander]

or for some sort of frogified negotiations process that might take six months.

:rofl: Ok, you lost me, Robert. I went to dictionary.com, and the closest they had was :

frogged

\Frogged\, a. Provided or ornamented with frogs; as, a frogged coat. See Frog, n., 4. --Ld. Lytton.

:rofl:

So I've got this picture in my mind of the negotiation process you're alluding to and now I can't stop laughing.:rofl:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ectually, I was thinking upon them demmed FRENCHIES, and how they are even more annoying than I am.

 

[lvwhitebir]

The point is that the United States--us--launched a war in direct and knowing defiance of the UN Charter, which we signed.

If Resolution 678 was still in force, it wasn't an illegal action. That was voted up and approved by the UN. Resolution 1441 said (according to the Butler Report) that *any* failing of Iraq to comply with the previous resolutions would result in reasserting Resolution 678. The inspectors said they were hopeful, but the Iraqis still were not complying. Also according to the Butler Report, Resolution 1441 didn't require the UN to "approve" additional action; it was worded specifically in that manner.

The only way you can say it's illegal is to get Resolution 678 off the table, by either a resolution claiming it was satisfied or a follow-on resolution that claims any force against Iraq would require additional UN approval. I doubt you'll find either.

WhiteBirch

 

[MisterMike]

As for showing it's teeth, the UN has called for N. Korea to stop all nuclear activity unrelated to energy production or peacefull purposes.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040924/ts_nm/nuclear_korea_north_dc

Actually it was the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA), who reported N. Korea's activity after being expelled from the country to the U.N., who has dont NOTHING about it.

 

[bassplayer]

The UN 'showing its teeth' is about as fear-inspiring as Kenny's 'mean face' in Half Baked!

 

[PeachMonkey]

Actually it was the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA), who reported N. Korea's activity after being expelled from the country to the U.N., who has dont NOTHING about it.

The IAEA is a UN agency.

And the UN can only make a move if the Security Council approves it.

It's that whole Iraq thing again -- the Security Council never called for an invasion of Iraq...

 

[MisterMike]

The IAEA is a UN agency.

And the UN can only make a move if the Security Council approves it.

It's that whole Iraq thing again -- the Security Council never called for an invasion of Iraq...

Oh I know. That's why we had to make the move ourselves.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Oh I know. That's why we had to make the move ourselves.

Yeah, we clearly *had* to make that move. Given all the weapons of mass destruction -- oh, wait.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Kids, there's a reason for the lengthiness of politics and debate.

They are almost always to be preferred to our killing each other.

Leaving out the facts that WE helped screw up the region in the first place (1956 CIA-sponsored overthrow of Mossadegh government in Iran), that WE propped up Hussein during the Iran/Iraq war, that WE coulda got him back in 1991, that WE sold out the Kurds, that WE exaggerated the living hell out of the threat and WE faked some of the "evidence," all Bush had to do was wait and argue a while.

He'd have got what he wanted, and we wouldn't be stuck in Iraq with a huge mess on our hands--oh yes, and a lotta dead people and a 200 billion price tag.

You know--he coulda cowboyed it less, and tried a FEW BASIC MARTIAL ARTS PRINCIPLES? Like having the self-confidence to try and settle things as peacefully as possible?

The inspections were working. We wouldn't wait. We had a hard time arguing the case. So what?

If the UN cannot function, we're a lot of the reason why. We've had right-wing nutcakes and Christian fundamentalists screaming about the secretary general being the Antichrist since what? 1947?

 

[Makalakumu]

Kids, there's a reason for the lengthiness of politics and debate.

They are almost always to be preferred to our killing each other.

Leaving out the facts that WE helped screw up the region in the first place (1956 CIA-sponsored overthrow of Mossadegh government in Iran), that WE propped up Hussein during the Iran/Iraq war, that WE coulda got him back in 1991, that WE sold out the Kurds, that WE exaggerated the living hell out of the threat and WE faked some of the "evidence," all Bush had to do was wait and argue a while.

He'd have got what he wanted, and we wouldn't be stuck in Iraq with a huge mess on our hands--oh yes, and a lotta dead people and a 200 billion price tag.

You know--he coulda cowboyed it less, and tried a FEW BASIC MARTIAL ARTS PRINCIPLES? Like having the self-confidence to try and settle things as peacefully as possible?

The inspections were working. We wouldn't wait. We had a hard time arguing the case. So what?

If the UN cannot function, we're a lot of the reason why. We've had right-wing nutcakes and Christian fundamentalists screaming about the secretary general being the Antichrist since what? 1947?

Robert, the Bush Administration couldn't wait for debate. This war was PLANNED years ago. The neocons want to reform Islam by force if necessary. To them, this is WW4. If the world doesn't want to buy into this plan, oh well...we don't have a 300 billion military budget for nothing. The bottom line is that these people will do anything they possibly can to get this plan done.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, but no. In the first place, these guys ain't that smart.

Much more importantly, the liberal/left in this country has always found part-baked conspiracy theories a helluva lot easier to stomach than material and historical reality.

Among other things--see the issue of, "subjectivism," in Geo. Lukacs' discussions of literature--these conspiracies let the liberal middle class off the hook. What hook? The hook of realizing that (somewhat as right-wingers complain) champagne liberalism rests upon the exploitation of workers and the Third World...not as a result of conspiracy, but as an effect of the capitalist system that makes champage liberalism possible in the first place.

Yes. Yes. The Trilateral Comission. Floridation. The CIA is smuggling drugs into Compton, using black helicopters. Area 51. The Illuminati; Skull and Bones. Bohemian Grove.

All are easier to blame than it is to recognize our complicity ( and our profit) in this moment of history. And there, the problem is that this washes our--yes, I mean, "our," hands clean. Hell, Kunen's "Strawberry Statement," got closer.

Repressive desublimation, anyone?

 

[Makalakumu]

Robert, take a look at what some of the neocons have to say. I think that you have vastly underestimated their power. You think this is a conspiracy...hmmm. They have written down their plans and published them. Bad conspiracy.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Oh, please. The Bush Admin basically ANNOUNCED that it was an illegal war, from the UN's point of view, when they announced that the inspectors had to leave because they were launching strikes without Security Council approval.

So your whole argument is that the war is illegal because we told the inspectors to get out before we attacked? I think it was awfully nice to give both the inspectors and the Iraqi government notice that we were going in.

We launched several missile strikes in the 1990's without explicit UN approval. What's the difference now?

One thing I've never heard was what other people felt were other options on the table that were ignored. What else could the coalition have done, given the history of this conflict?

WhiteBirch

 

[Flatlander]

What else could the coalition have done, given the history of this conflict?

Not formed a coalition at all, and instead wait for the UN security council, whose job it is (was) to direct international policy in a legitimate way, to come to some sort of consensus.

 

[heretic888]

At the very least, the Bush Administration could have attempted to rally more international support to their "cause" --- so the burden wouldn't be so squarely placed on our country's shoulders.

It would also help to give it more of a "legitimate" face. Let's face it: right or wrong, the Arab world hates America, so a more "international" face would have greatly helped in smoothing things out.

Oh yeah, let's not forget it would have been nice if the Bush Administration actually listened to what all the experts, professors, and analysts were telling them --- that we will not be seen as liberators, that we will have a "long, hard slog" (to quote the Vice President) on our hands, that there will be massive resistance against our presence, and that it most definately will not be "mission accomplished" anytime soon.

Unsurprisingly, the administration ignored every one of those guys. After all, who needs careful research, historical analyses, and academic understanding --- when you've got ideology?? Vive la neocons!!

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. No, I think that when you announce that you don't have UN approval for military action, and you specifically announce that you're going to ignore the UN vote against military action, and you then launch military action, you're probably going to be considered to be doing something illegal from the UN's point of view.

2. It is always going to be easier to come up with grand conspiracy theories than it is going to be to a) actually look at the history and methodology of our economic system, and b) actually look at the extent to which we are extraordinarily privileged by our lucky place in material history. In other words, blaming THEM is a lot easier than dealing with the wisdom of Pogo, who knew long ago that, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." It's also more optimistic, because then if you get rid of THEM, all the problems evaporate. Unfortunately....

 

[bassplayer]

The problem is, the UN is halfway capable at the very best. And when you're trying to get them to uphold resolutions that they've made when almost half the security council is in the back pocket of the party you're trying to enforce resolutions on, it becomes damn near impossible.
It totally made sense to recognize the UN's impotence in this manner. Sure, the UN has done SOME good things...but then again, so has the oil for food program. SOME good things. I love how Annan touts that noone should be able the law when that's exactly his position on himself!
So the question I have is, who is the UN accountable to?

 

[Flatlander]

The problem is, the UN is halfway capable at the very best.

Well, having the most powerful individual member of the security council taking actions that are outside of the agreed upon protocol, not a lot is being done to boost or strengthen the UN's authority.

And when you're trying to get them to uphold resolutions that they've made when almost half the security council is in the back pocket of the party you're trying to enforce resolutions on, it becomes damn near impossible.

To whom are you referring here? What evidence do you have to support this claim? It seems to me that, were your accusations accurate and provable, Iraq would not have been the only country targetted in this round of the "war on terror". A verifiable linkage amounting to "being in the back pocket" of Saddam Houssein would likely have been interpreted as "against us", don't you think?

It totally made sense to recognize the UN's impotence in this manner. Sure, the UN has done SOME good things...but then again, so has the oil for food program.

I have a real concern with this. If you honestly feel that the UN ought not play the role of final authority on international matters, then who should? It seems to me that this is what they were created for in the first place. In what way is it more valuable to the global community to usurp the UN mandate? Do you suppose that the US should take on the responsibility for global security unilaterally? How deep ARE your pockets? Do you understand what the UN even is? It is the UNITED NATIONS. A consortium of all of the nations that have any interest in global harmony, capable of making a contribution to that. And they all have a say in how things should be done. To undermine their authority is to basically proclaim to the rest of the world - "Don't need ya, don't want ya, we'll do as we choose!" Can you see that on a global scale this is analogous to national dictatorship? It most certainly doesn't resemble democracy.

So the question I have is, who is the UN accountable to?

Eachother, the member states, the global citizenry - YOU and I.

 

[Flatlander]

As a result of my current research on the subject, I am now of the opinion that the UN lost its teeth with its failure in enforcing UN General Assembly resolution 194.

The current instability in the middle East is directly descended from this loose end, and it is in that failure that the UN essentially removed its own backbone.

I can now understand why these many nations can so unremorsefully thumb their collective noses at any UN resolution. In terms of global security, the UN security council has no credibility.

I guess I could simply point to the fact that the US is now turning to NATO, however unsuccessfully, to take a more active role in Afghanistan, rather than the UN, as specific evidence of that.

In other UN news today:

United Nations — Japan won a two-year term on the UN Security Council on Friday along with Argentina, Denmark, Greece and Tanzania.

Japan is expected to use its presence on the powerful UN body, starting Jan. 1, to spotlight its campaign for a permanent council seat.

Friday's election by the 191 members of the UN General Assembly rubber-stamped the candidates selected by regional groups.

In the secret ballot, Argentina received 188 votes, Greece 187, Tanzania 186, Japan 184 and Denmark 181.

Assembly President Jean Ping announced the results and congratulated the new council members. Diplomats in the General Assembly chamber then burst into applause.