The conflicted liberal viewpoint on Iraq

[GePap]

The UN worked in 1990 becuase the issue back then was a clear one: one state had invaded another, it had broken the cardinal rule (of course it is not that simple, the state happened to pick an economically important spot and it lacked council friends to block action) and thus it was simple to demand action and get it. Today the point of the war is a nebulous threat, and the arguemnt that one can't go around not listening to UN SC resoltutions. The problems witht eh second argument are:

1) The only reason the US gets to jerk the UN around is because it has a veto. If nigeria decided to 'enforce UN sec Council" resolutions using a "coolition of the willing" while the big five sat ont heir hands, they would get away with it. As I said elsewhere, the UN charter does not allow for posses, willing or otherwise. The fact that the US will get away with itself violating the charter is because it is a veto power with the ability for itself to ignore the UN.

2) As long as the vto system holds, any state with Big five friends gets to ignore all the UN sec council resolutions it wants. Iraq is getting picked on because it is weak, and has no firend sthat find it politically vital, or strategically vital, to keep Saddam around. The whole iraq debate has everything to do with the US of US power. Iraq is simply the victim chosen for the sacrifice.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Prove that it doesn't?

With a phrase like "serious consequences," we're both right. It's so ambiguous that it can mean anything.

Entirely open to interpretation....just as the SC wanted it.

-=Vel=-

Vel, you're too much.

You admit that war was not the aim of the SC's resolution. It was quite probably the aim of some of its members, but also probably not enough to pass it.

But you persist in making the argument that this needs to be done to uphold the SC's will?

The fact is that this entire episode has only had one effect: those on the SC who disagree with the current unilateral/bilateral US/UK implementation of 1441 will simply be less willing to compromise on the language of future resolutions.

And that just means that the UNSC won't pass anything of any meaning.

Because instead of deciding to consult with its partners, and all of its partners on implementing 1441, the US has only seeked out "like-minded nations" to join it in doing what it had already decided on.

Which is a neat trick, and works. Once.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by GePap

1) The only reason the US gets to jerk the UN around is because it has a veto. If nigeria decided to 'enforce UN sec Council" resolutions using a "coolition of the willing" while the big five sat ont heir hands, they would get away with it. As I said elsewhere, the UN charter does not allow for posses, willing or otherwise. The fact that the US will get away with itself violating the charter is because it is a veto power with the ability for itself to ignore the UN.

Two things.
Firstly, the UN authorizes action. It does not implement it, demand it or require it. The US (and allies) was authorized to enact the prior resolution and did so. The armistice (and its terms, rconditions, etc) was signed by the Iraqis and US/Allied forces. If Iraq breaches these then it breaches an agreement with the US/Allies, not the UN, and another UN security council resolution may not even be required for any "followup" action.

Secondly, the way the UN is currently set up, the aggressor party under indictment does not have the Veto power (or a vote on the SC if one of the other SC members) - hence would require a veto from one of the other members.

[GePap]

Two things.
Firstly, the UN authorizes action. It does not implement it, demand it or require it. The US (and allies) was authorized to enact the prior resolution and did so. The armistice (and its terms, rconditions, etc) was signed by the Iraqis and US/Allied forces. If Iraq breaches these then it breaches an agreement with the US/Allies, not the UN, and another UN security council resolution may not even be required for any "followup" action.

Secondly, the way the UN is currently set up, the aggressor party under indictment does not have the Veto power (or a vote on the SC if one of the other SC members) - hence would require a veto from one of the other members.

2 things:

I disagree with your take on this. Compare the UN to a court. No court enforces actions on its own, it authorizes, makes them legal and legitmizes them, and somebody else enforces them. Who actually enforces is meaningless. their action is only valid under the authority of the UN. Further action to bring into complience must also be authorized by the UN, since the enforcers actions only have legitmacy within the framework of the UN. As for what "followup can be taken" that is decided by the authorizing resolutions themselves. If one is sufficently vague, as is 1441, you can probalby get away with taking action without direct authorization for it in some follwup.

A veto memebr would never be brought up to the Sec Council. The other veto powers, unless the act is directed squarely against them, have no incentive to allow anyone in the UN review over their actions. Which is why the UN did nothing about Afghanistan, or any other situation in which one of the 5 veto holders could have been designated as the aggressor.

[Ned]

GePap, You make a good observation. The SC does not control the actions of the permanent members due to their veto. In its early years, there was some discussion about whether a GA resolution could override a veto. The charter was never amended.

What the SC controls are threats to peace caused by everyone other than the permanent members.

The US said to the UN that Iraq was a test case. If the UN was willing to enforce its resolutions, the US was willing to work with it. If the UN nows fails to enforce its resolutions, the US will no longer bother with it when US security is at stake.

Even the most die hard UN supporters are going to be hard pressed to say that we must take US security concerns to the UN and get resolutions, sanctions and the like. In the end, it is all a waste of time as the UN will not enforce the resolutions - meaning the target of any resolutions can ignore the UN with impunity and US security is degraded.

Tomorrow is a defining moment for the UN. It's future is at stake.

[DuncanK]

Ah the UN was never ****. People just argue that the UN should do this or that, or that such and such country should get UN authorization when it suits their needs. I don't know why so much time is spent discussing it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Tomorrow is a defining moment for the UN. It's future is at stake.

No, the US' is.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
Tomorrow is a defining moment for the UN. It's future is at stake.

I don't see how that's the case. Right now, it's the US that's jerking people around, not the UN.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by GePap

I disagree with your take on this. Compare the UN to a court. No court enforces actions on its own, it authorizes, makes them legal and legitmizes them, and somebody else enforces them. Who actually enforces is meaningless. their action is only valid under the authority of the UN. Further action to bring into complience must also be authorized by the UN, since the enforcers actions only have legitmacy within the framework of the UN. As for what "followup can be taken" that is decided by the authorizing resolutions themselves. If one is sufficently vague, as is 1441, you can probalby get away with taking action without direct authorization for it in some follwup.

I was under the impression that courts did have legal authority to "direct" an enforcement order to the law enforcement agency in question...
Maybe its just a high degree of cooperation between the two?
In any case though, as the UN definitively doesn't have any enforcement "agency" at its disposal it has to assemble (or rather have a nation or coalition of such assemble) the force required before issuing any "authorizations".
To give the UN the sort of "standing" it needs (read as "face" I guess) it has to be vague in any directives as, if they aren't fulfilled, (and the UN itself doesn't have any clout to fulfill them) the UN thence could lose face and along with it the semblance of moral authority and ability upon which most of its decisions depend.
Read: 90-odd % of UN actions may not require force but this is only because of the 10% that do, and that in those instances the force has been provided when necessary and has done its job. If more of the 10% fail, then force may be needed in more of the other 90%.
Ergo the UN needs the "out" provided by the vague terms and the "delegation" of authority rather than attempting to enforce actions itself.
Imagine if a resolution called for the destruction of the Iraqi regime (for example) and nobody came to the party?

That's my take on it anyway...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Frogger
Did it threaten the use of force against Iraq in 1441?

It said "or suffer serious concequences".

[Jac de Molay]

Great thread....

Ah the UN was never ****. People just argue that the UN should do this or that, or that such and such country should get UN authorization when it suits their needs. I don't know why so much time is spent discussing it.

This is exactly the way the Administration hawks felt about the current inspection regime. Before the ink was even dry on the new resolutions, hawks like Rummy were dismissing the new set of inspections before they even got in country!!!

Bush had a hard on for war from the get-go, and working through the UN was an afterthought. Instead of a tough, coherent diplomacy, we've been sold fear-mongering and deception that Iraq will somehow become a test-case for democracy in the region

But only at the barrel of a gun. And if its a regime thats to our liking.

[DuncanK]

Re: Great thread....

Originally posted by DetroitDave


This is exactly the way the Administration hawks felt about the current inspection regime. Before the ink was even dry on the new resolutions, hawks like Rummy were dismissing the new set of inspections before they even got in country!!!

Bush had a hard on for war from the get-go, and working through the UN was an afterthought. Instead of a tough, coherent diplomacy, we've been sold fear-mongering and deception that Iraq will somehow become a test-case for democracy in the region

But only at the barrel of a gun. And if its a regime thats to our liking.

Well, we didn't elect a president that is too good at diplomacy. Too bad that's not his only fault. Still, the UN is not really significant at all except as a place for diplomacy to take place. A place for all the nations to meet. The facilities are all that it amounts too. If France and the US aren't going to agree than they just aren't going to agree.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: The conflicted liberal viewpoint on Iraq

Originally posted by Guynemer
Hope this doesn't get closed.

I've been having an internal debate with myself for months now.

On the one hand, Saddam Hussein is a bad, bad, bad guy, an autocratic dictator, and we would all be better off if he were not in power.

On the other hand, in Iraq, women can drive cars, go to college, walk alone without a head scarf, have jobs, etc. In Saudi Arabia, "our great ally," women are chased back into a burning building if their faces become uncovered during their escape. So don't tell me that this war is about human rights.

On the one hand, I don't doubt that Saddam Hussein has working on developing chem and bio weapons, and at least has fantasies about working on nukes.

On the other hand, there is no proof of any of this. And even if it were true, it's not like he has the capability to strike the US with these weapons. North Korea, on the other hand... So don't tell me that this war is about weapons.

On the one hand, chances are awful good that there are Al Queda elements living in Iraq, plotting against the Western world.

On the other hand, OBL hates Saddam, called him an infidel--he appealed to the people of Iraq, not the Iraqi government. And there is certainly more Al Queda activity going on in the territory of our dear, dear friends Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So don't tell me that this war is about terrorism.

On the one hand, I acknowledge that victory is assured and likely easy to accomplish.

On the other hand, the madman of Baghdad will almost certainly use tactics that will guarantee significant loss of civilian life, no matter what the eventual military loss. Moreover, victory will only remain as such as long as a friendly government remains in place in Iraq, requiring a continued military presence for years--possibly decades--thereby inciting continued terrorist threats against us. So don't tell me that this war is about expediency.




I am willing to support war against Iraq, as long as someone can tell me just what the hell the war is supposed to be about.

It's about human rights, weapons and expediency. Terrorism is a moot point

[Wernazuma III]

Re: Re: Great thread....

Originally posted by DuncanK
Well, we didn't elect a president that is too good at diplomacy.

In the first place, you didn't elect him, he was appointed by the Supreme Court.

[DuncanK]

Re: Re: Re: Great thread....

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

In the first place, you didn't elect him, he was appointed by the Supreme Court.

Hey, at least the army didn't prop him up. We were in a crisis. The crisis was solved peacefully. I don't care for him either, but what I don't understand is why the world is do hostile towards us.