Did we score a victory?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon
Hasn't this thread gone way OT?

Isn't the current situation that the US and UK are aiming for a "moral victory" in the SC if the French veto it?

All I can see here is the US and UK changing their position yet again because events have come out against them. First they wanted this kind of resolution, then that one, then they wanted it passed, now they don't. Blah blah blah.

And as for the "Chinese and Russians are coming around", haven't we heard this sort of story numerous times over the past few weeks? First the press claim that the anti-war crowd are "coming around" or that taking an anti-war stance in this situation is "politically unthinkable". Then it comes to the crunch and the anti-war crowd are as resolute as ever. This is quickly becoming boring - the sooner Bush leaves the UN the better for him.

What's changed now? - Nothing.

The new "compromise" resolution is no such thing. If adopted it will be an effective ticket to war since it will be vague enough that Saddam can always be found guilty.

Now the US and UK are attempting to blame the French for all this and are claiming that they are "isolated". This is so funny I cant laugh hard enough. It is Bush, Blair and their coalition of the bribed that are isolated both from world opinion and from in most cases the opinion of their own people.

Agathon, but what kind of victory is this? Does the UN SC have any credibility left? If it is unwilling to enforce the Security Council resolution 1441, what is Saddam to think? Does he have to begin to serious disarmment, or can he continue to evade and deceive?

And what should the leaders of North Korea and Iran think? Do they have anything to fear from the UN Security Council?

Surely, the hard left and France have taught Blair and Bush a lesson. But in doing so, they have also crippled the UN Security Council. Because they've crippled the Security Council, they have made war much more likely, not only with Iraq, but also with North Korea and Iran.

[Lincoln]

The UN is an international debating society with no teeth. Even a liberal should be able to see that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
There will always be leaks, but it's about taking a moral stand against an evil regime that doesn't involve
partaking in an aggressive war.

Screw moral stands - I'd rather do something effective.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Let's see if I understand this thread: Che is happy because the liberals and commies forced Bush to listen to reason and not go to war. But I thought Bush was a trigger happy, cowboy, unilateralitist who didn't care what anyone thinks? Which is it???

I think it's that the trigger happy, cowboy unilateralist won't be able to claim some patina of international legitimacy for being a trigger happy, cowboy unilateralist.

BTW, am I a liberal or a commie? I'm never sure any more.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The UN is an international debating society with no teeth. Even a liberal should be able to see that.

Of course - giving five separate nations absolute veto power was intended to prevent anyone from really doing anything that is even slightly controversial.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned

Agathon, but what kind of victory is this? Does the UN SC have any credibility left? If it is unwilling to enforce the Security Council resolution 1441, what is Saddam to think? Does he have to begin to serious disarmment, or can he continue to evade and deceive?

It would have no credibility at all if it became a mere tool of the US as it would if it rubber stamped this war. This way it at least keeps the appearance of democracy and multilateralism which is what it is supposed to be about. If the US wants to ride roughshod over the opinions of the rest of the globe then it can attempt to, but I think it is a victory for believers in international law that the SC has refused to be cowed.

And as far as I am concerned these were UN resolutions and their enforcement is the business of the UN and no other organisation. If the UN doesn't enforce its own resolutions there is nothing wrong - it doesn't have to and may have good reason not to.

And what should the leaders of North Korea and Iran think? Do they have anything to fear from the UN Security Council?

These are separate issues. The reason that these countries are building up weapons (although the case against Iran is weak and it isn't clear when NK got its nukes) is that Bush has publicly threatened them. In other words they have good reason to believe that the United States plans to engage in unilateral military action against them, so it is not a surprise that they are agressively building weapons for defence.

Surely, the hard left and France have taught Blair and Bush a lesson. But in doing so, they have also crippled the UN Security Council. Because they've crippled the Security Council, they have made war much more likely, not only with Iraq, but also with North Korea and Iran.

If there is war then I think that outside of the US it will not be perceived as a just war. This is the case for the British people who are opposed to war and to the Spanish who are even more passionately opposed to it. Since these countries are democracies such widespread dissatisfaction with government policy increases the likelihood of radical democratic change.

The strategy of people on the hard left has been to wait for an issue which would force a crisis of democracy - a situation in which the undemocratic nature of contemporary politics is exposed for even the dullest person to see - and from that to use public opinion to build more democratic institutions. I think that this is too optimistic, but I think that it can be used to force a mild democratic shift.

This may be such an occasion - it has already had a long desired effect in making ordinary people around the world think of the US as the problem of world politics rather than the solution. That is already far beyond my wildest expectations and now I am placing at the extreme periphery of my hopes the deposing of Blair and the movement of the UK away from the US towards a more integrated stance within Europe. Any more than that would be absolutely outstanding and I'd consider quitting my job to become a full time political agitator, but I'm not too hopeful.

As for making war more likely. War with whom I might ask? Who is Iran going to attack? Who is North Korea going to attack? Will these countries risk American reprisal to wage aggressive wars against their neighbours? I think not. Is war waged against these countries more likely given the current SC stance. I don't think so, but it would be if the UN rubber stamped American wars of aggression.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The UN is an international debating society with no teeth. Even a liberal should be able to see that.

Unfortunately , it's also an internation debating society that the democracy loving citizens of most countries care about very deeply because they see it as providing the beginnings of a real system of international law.

The problem facing the pro-war leaders is that they didn't realise that their own constituents care about the UN much more than they do. This won't bother Bush much since the UN has least influence in the US, but the Europeans really care about it and so do the Canadians, which shows why there is such a difference of opinion on this side of the Niagara Falls.

I can't believe that they didn't account for this. After all almost everyone I know thinks that an international criminal court is a fantastic idea since the current system allows the Suhartos, Pinochets and Kissingers to get away with mass murder. Opposing such a court can't but help make you look like a bad guy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


Unfortunately , it's also an internation debating society that the democracy loving citizens of most countries care about very deeply because they see it as providing the beginnings of a real system of international law.

The problem facing the pro-war leaders is that they didn't realise that their own constituents care about the UN much more than they do. This won't bother Bush much since the UN has least influence in the US, but the Europeans really care about it and so do the Canadians, which shows why there is such a difference of opinion on this side of the Niagara Falls.

I can't believe that they didn't account for this. After all almost everyone I know thinks that an international criminal court is a fantastic idea since the current system allows the Suhartos, Pinochets and Kissingers to get away with mass murder. Opposing such a court can't but help make you look like a bad guy.

Don't forget to inlcude Clinton in that list of international criminals. He made aggressive war on Yugoslavia without UN authority.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned


Don't forget to inlcude Clinton in that list of international criminals. He made aggressive war on Yugoslavia without UN authority.

I'm always amused that right leaning Americans play this like a trump card. On the real left Clinton is reviled as the closest Republican he is.

So for the record:

In my opinion Clinton is an evil, worthless womanising SOB who should spend the rest of his life rotting in a prison for his crimes (of which perjury was the least). Same goes for Reagan and Bush Sr.

[yavoon]

the problem w/ ne idea that the UN is an international governing body. is it simply never enforces anything.

u can't govern w/o enoforcement. the list of countries currently breaking UN resolutions is rather long and includes countries from almost every alignment.

lets face it, the UN is a joke. sure its a nice idea and we should work at maybe in the future making it not a joke. but the thing is when u say "u have to do this or else" when or else comes, u gotta drop the bombs.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by yavoon
the problem w/ ne idea that the UN is an international governing body. is it simply never enforces anything.

u can't govern w/o enoforcement. the list of countries currently breaking UN resolutions is rather long and includes countries from almost every alignment.

lets face it, the UN is a joke. sure its a nice idea and we should work at maybe in the future making it not a joke. but the thing is when u say "u have to do this or else" when or else comes, u gotta drop the bombs.

You just might be the first person to go on my ignore list.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Actually, it really isn't. The extent of French-Iraqi ties are well known, and there is really no other conceivable reason for France to threaten to veto "any deadline" for disarmament.

It could be becasue they are a democratic country and are doing what their people want. AFAIK The US (and maybe Israel?) are the only countries where the people want to go to war. In both Spain and the UK people against war are in the majority.

[yavoon]

ok osweld, why not just ignore me now. save urself the trouble. I dont have any particular interest in stopping ppl from putting their hands over their ears and going nananananana.

if thats how u live life then all I can do is hope u never posess any real power.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by yavoon
the problem w/ ne idea that the UN is an international governing body. is it simply never enforces anything.

Yes it does, learn your history mate. It is true that it doesn't enforce everything, but nothing is too strong.

u can't govern w/o enoforcement. the list of countries currently breaking UN resolutions is rather long and includes countries from almost every alignment.

That is true, but do we attempt to strengthen the institution so that it is harder to do this or do we just consign it to the dustbin of history and end up with a world with no checks on aggression and nowhere to talk about it.

lets face it, the UN is a joke. sure its a nice idea and we should work at maybe in the future making it not a joke. but the thing is when u say "u have to do this or else" when or else comes, u gotta drop the bombs.

Then if this is your attitude then I suggest you focus your efforts on the country that has done the most since 1950 to frustrate the will of the UN by using its veto time and again against the wishes of the international community. That country is the United States.

[yavoon]

obviously when I said "never enforce anything" it was exageration.

yes if you piss them off they will try to drop sanctions on u. they will probably draft 2-3 more resolutions. maybe yell a lil, call u a bad person.

the UN is just a big place to talk. for the UN to be truely effective it'd need a military that didn't pull out of areas BECAUSE IT WAS SHOT AT. and a military large enuff to enforce, by force. when necessary. u'd need ur resoultions to hold weight and not simply be political tools.

if the US was for non-action I'm sure we would go against very few UN resolutions. unfortunately the UN takes so lil action that if you ever think being involved is a good idea chances are you need to go in faster than the UN can, or w/ more authority than the UN can.

cuz the UN is just inept.