Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Ned:

The Kosovo precedent does not make law on its own. It also leaves a lot of questions open: what is a sufficient collective? what is a legitimate target? what kind of SC failure is required?

Roland, yes these indeed are the questions that must be answered. Kosovo does not grant a blank check for any action by any group if the SC does not approve.

At a mininum, I would argue:

1) Collective action must involve a permanent member of the SC. Two clearly would be acceptable.

2) The "target" must be in violation of international law. Kosovo showed us that threat to international security is not necessary. But, if international security is not involved, the target must be at least be in the process of genocide such as was the case in Kosovo and earlier in Rwanda.

3) The question of what SC inaction is necessary for the coalition to proceed without the UN is now under debate. Clearly Blair believes that we need 9 votes in favor of the proposed action to justify it. That is why the diplomatic effort continues.

[HershOstropoler]

"1) Collective action must involve a permanent member of the SC. Two clearly would be acceptable."

Why SC members? Why two? Why not three?

"But, if international security is not involved, the target must be at least be in the process of genocide such as was the case in Kosovo and earlier in Rwanda."

There could have been an international security argument in the Kosovo crisis. But ok, what is the rationale for the Iraq war here?

"Clearly Blair believes that we need 9 votes in favor of the proposed action to justify it. That is why the diplomatic effort continues."

Which means you'd abolish the veto right. Does that also apply to US vetos?

[Jon Miller]

your last statement does not make since

never was there a connection between justification and passing the UN

Jon Miller

[randomturn]

seems to me like Marshall plan was money well spent for europe but not for US. Soviet dominated europe does not increase US security costs; it decreases them by freeing US from projecting so much power in bases, mapower, navy, etc overseas, not to mention all ancillary costs (all the dollars that presence pumped into local economies, etc.) Yes, USSR would have been momentarilly stronger, but so what? they're not going to invade america. Far east is more important trading bloc for US anyway and USSR was never likely to make mischief there because of China. US maintains interest in middle east, but let europe go to the russians. We cut 100BB/year off our military budget and lose just a fraction of that in market inefficiency/inflationary effects that represent the opprtunity cost of European trade relationships. This is what we should have done. Americans are very idealistic, though, and behaved too altruistically.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Sloth


Chile (!!!!!)
Greece
Philippines (Markos)
Iran -> http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php)
Central America (Guatemala, El salvador, Panama, etc)
Pakistan (Mousharraf was NOT elected democratically, I guess)
Many others

That said I can agree that in other instances the US acted as the "good guys"...but still....

All these actions were required to win the Cold War. They were undetaken to oppose increasing Soviet influence in these countries. In order to do so, the US had to support some bad dudes and some retrograde regimes. The long run outcome was that the USSR was successfully countered, and peace and democracy were made safe. If the USSR had gained in these countries tyranny and opporession would be the order of the day.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Sikander
If the world trends more and more toward democracy and tolerance, then the need for a country like the U.S. will be less and less.

Excellent point. I agree wholeheartedly.

[HershOstropoler]

randomturn:

"seems to me like Marshall plan was money well spent for europe but not for US."

Well... european GDP around 1950 100-125 billion $, US GDP 200-250 billion $. The 3 billion or so per year for the Marshall plan were a small amount; they gained their significance from balancing the distortions created by Bretton Woods.

"Soviet dominated europe does not increase US security costs; it decreases them by freeing US from projecting so much power in bases, mapower, navy, etc overseas"

Ehm... what nrs for US and european defense spending are you assuming for the time?

"We cut 100BB/year off our military budget and lose just a fraction of that in market inefficiency/inflationary effects that represent the opprtunity cost of European trade relationships."

Odd calculation. Why would that allowyou to cut your defense budget?

" Americans are very idealistic, though, and behaved too altruistically."

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"1) Collective action must involve a permanent member of the SC. Two clearly would be acceptable."

Why SC members? Why two? Why not three?

I believe that if two Security Council permanent members were involved, that the action could not be considered to be in unilateral action of a single permanent member who had gathered around him his lackey's to justify the requirement that there be a coalition.

"But, if international security is not involved, the target must be at least be in the process of genocide such as was the case in Kosovo and earlier in Rwanda."

There could have been an international security argument in the Kosovo crisis. But ok, what is the rationale for the Iraq war here?

Iraq clearly involves international security. There are 17 or 18 UN Security Council resolutions on this point.

[Quote] "Clearly Blair believes that we need 9 votes in favor of the proposed action to justify it. That is why the diplomatic effort continues."

Which means you'd abolish the veto right. Does that also apply to US vetos?

The obvious problem here, of course, is the failure to respect a veto may lead to world war. Which leads me to believe that breach of international law for which a remedy is sought must be related to a violation of prior UN Security Council resolutions -- assuming, that is, that breach of international law is not of the "genocide" variety.