Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Today, I came across an Article regarding Bush's plan to go to the U.N. Security Council to approve a resolution authorizing use of force in Iraq. Two questions stood out from the press conference with the Spanish Prime Minister.
When asked on whether or not the motion to use force is basically the U.N. Security Council's "last chance at relevance", Bush said "Yes".
When asked on whether or not Bush will defer his motion to use force for two months if the U.N. Security Council insists, Bush said "No".
From these statements, I can honestly say that the U.N. is in big trouble. A week ago, Canada's PM Chretien said that if the U.S. goes about attacking Iraq without approval from the U.N. Security Council, it would effectively sound the death knell for the U.N. itself. However, there are bigger things in the picture.
To be specific, if the U.N. Security Council approves the motion for use of force, then the U.N. would be seen as nothing but the U.S.'s whipping boy. If the U.S. can persuade the U.N. to allow the use of force against Iraq, then it can basically do anything it wants while the U.N. would have no choice but to say yes. Even the U.N. would have approve a motion to destroy Canada if the U.S. so insists.
Likewise, if the U.N. Security Council defers the motion, then the U.S. (along with the U.K.) would go on attacking Iraq, without approval from the U.N. The U.N. would then be seen as irrelevant, if it cannot prevent the U.S. from attacking Iraq, then it cannot do anything relevant. Whole countries could do whatever they want without approval from the U.N. And yes, the U.S. could invade Canada, who cares about some fricken Security Council? Hence, the U.N. would be dead.
Catch-22? Opinions?
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
As much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with your assessment there -- the UN is no longer relevant... in the arena of "power politics," anyway. The purpose of the Security Council to promote "international peace and security" no longer operates -- either to approve the US's position against Iraq (which in that line of reasoning probably could/should have been done months ago) or else to decisively stop the US from its rampant warmongering against Iraq.
The ironic thing is, one of the little-known functions of the UN Security Council (or the General Assembly, I'm not sure which TBH) is that it can declare one side of a conflict to be the "aggressor nation," and bring the full political and economic weight of the UN against that nation. For instance, at the beginning of the Korean War, North Korea was declared an aggressor nation and was slapped with full sanctions and authorized the organization of an international military force (US-led, of course) to fight. But the point was that EVERYONE was pitching in -- theoretically it was The World vs. North Korea there.
Now, in holding that same idea to be true, wouldn't that principle apply to the United States? (This assumes that the UN refuses to declare Iraq in material breach before the US attacks.) The US could/should be declared an aggressor nation. Of course, the realities of the UN and global politics in general means that idea has less than a snowball's chance in hell, but still, it makes you think...
And all of a sudden, Q's mention of the "New" United Nations in the TNG premiere doesn't sound so ludicrous, does it?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree that, if the US decides to override the UN and attack on its own, the UN's only sensical reaction could be to declare the US at fault, and defend Iraq. Of course, since that won't happen, the UN is, in fact, fucked.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I agree that, if the US decides to override the UN and attack on its own, the UN's only sensical reaction could be to declare the US at fault, and defend Iraq. Of course, since that won't happen, the UN is, in fact, fucked.
Signature material!
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
The UN needs one more superpower. Or one less. Balance of force, and all that.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If you get right down to it, the UN already got screwed in this regard back during Yugoslavia. Clinton and NATO made damn sure of that.
I was highly impressed and pleasantly surprised when Bush went before the UN. It was their chance to show they had a sack.
But, let's face it . . . no matter what one's opinions on the Iraq thing, the UN has, especially in recent years, consistently shown that it has no sack, unless the United States loans it one for awhile.
As a sounding board for nations to get together and talk, vent, or just bitch, it's superb. As a humanitarian organization, it ain't bad. But as anything remotely resembling a planetary government or even a quasi-pseudo confederation of nations, it is rather useless.
Don't get me wrong. I like the UN. But it's facing the same problems as faced by the League of Nations, or even the US pre-Constitution "Articles of Confederation" . . . there's simply not enough power put into play.
But really, the problem is not with the UN's charter. The charter's got sack. But the charter is just a piece of paper, too often ignored, and the existence of the Security Council, with its permanent members each with veto power, has become somewhat archaic.
Potential Options Brainstorm (i.e. not all of these are good ideas, but they're food for thought):
1. Keep the Security Council, but make it an election event within the UN. Every X years, a new Security Council is formed.
(France is sure to surrender its seat without argument. )
Problems: Potential increase in gridlock. Potential under-the-table dealings. A possible solution would be to have five lists . . . you may pick a country from each.
1a. A variant . . . set up a second Security Council featuring elected nations to spread out the power a little. In the case of disagreements between the two, let it go to the Secretary-General, so he looks like he has a sack.
2. International election for Secretary-General. In an era of increasing globalization mixed precariously with increasing nationalism, this might provide a stronger voice for the UN.
After all, let's face it . . . the average Earth citizen doesn't know jack about Kofi Annan, besides that he's Secretary-General of the UN. The average human might be more inclined to listen to the guy who theoretically leads the world if they know that they took part in the vote for or against him.
Also known as the "I have a mandate from the people of Earth, bitch" idea.
Problems: Cost, especially in nations that don't already have a sound (or trustworthy) voting system. But, as far as campaign costs go, one could have a system set up early that would prevent people from spending money on it. Say, submit a write-up to the election board, and it'll get printed and distributed by the UN to newspapers, internet, and so on. Nothing paid for by one side or the other, no flashy "Vote for Saddam, he'll give you infidel whore-slaves!" buttons.
Setting it up fairly . . . it can't just be direct voting, or else China would always win. You'd almost have to do it on a country-by-country basis, with at least some weight for population.
******
Those might or might not help . . . but the fact is, something has to happen. The UN needs to show that it is not irrelevant, and that it has the sack to prove it. Right now, though, I don't think it has the ability to whip one out.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
"Having a sack," this is the in-lingo spoken by all the funky hepcats, yes? Groovy, daddy-o. I totally dig where you're coming from, in a far-out kind of way.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"Like the UN's record during 40 years of cold war was a string of successes. . ."
Well, no. If you wanted to evaluate the UN's merits, its diplomatic track record wouldn't be the ideal place to start. As an august body dedicated to preserving peace and protecting human life it has, in fact, failed abysmally.
And why? Because the organization has been trampled over & shoved aside with contemptible impunity in EACH AND EVERY conflict to date, cold or warm. Add to that an utter lack of military authority and you realize in an instant the whole thing's a farce best mercifully cut short.
But a second, diametrically opposed superpower (say, China) might just bring about a long-overdue change in global attitude towards the UN, restore the O. to what it should be: an international force to be reckoned with, instead of a doormat to wipe the world's dirt on.
[ February 24, 2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
I sure hope that the United Nations doesn't go the way of The League of Nations. That one didn't work out all that great according to my History teacher.
I think that the UN should stand up to Bush. He's nothing but a schoolyard bully. But in this case the schoolyard is the world... and the
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
I sure hope that the United Nations doesn't go the way of The League of Nations. That one didn't work out all that great according to my History teacher.
I think that the UN should stand up to Bush. He's nothing but a schoolyard bully. But in this case the schoolyard is the world.
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, nobody seems to care that Iraq is, in fact, in material breech, UN declaration or no. The argument could be made that the UN is irrelevant because they refuse to do anything, not because they follow/are ignored by the US, and it'd make just as much sense.
On another topic, if the Korean war was UN vs. N. Korea, how did China's participation play into it? Or was the PRC not part of the UN at the time? I know they weren't given the Chinese seat until a couple decades later...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
It is only a material breach because only the U.S. (and possibly the U.K.) says it is. The declaration is just not strong enough for the U.N. to declare. That is what has the U.N. in a precarious position. Basically, the U.S. has all the cards and hasn't shown its entire hand yet.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: On another topic, if the Korean war was UN vs. N. Korea, how did China's participation play into it? Or was the PRC not part of the UN at the time? I know they weren't given the Chinese seat until a couple decades later...
Yup. In fact, the only reason the war happened was because the Soviet Union had been boycotting the Security Council on account of American refusal to recognize Communist China as an actual country at the UN. Of course, as soon as the Security Council passed a resolution against NK the Soviets quickly kicked themselves and got back in so they could veto future situations.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
