Has the UN failed?

[MRT144]

krammerman, if that happens could you stand underneath a kettle, id fancy some human heated tea. and i know that sounds wrong on so many levels

[Dis]

I heard something today that I completely forgot.

The U.N never came up with a resolution on that Yugoslavia thing did they?

The U.S. just went in and started bombing. If I remember correctly, they did have NATO approval.

It's funny how we did that with Bill Clinton as president and no one complained. Now we want to do the same thing with a republican president and everyone complains. I don't get it.

In any case what this shows, is that the U.N. was hurting even in the late 90's. They have been inneffective for a while.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Define "fail."

Well, Iraq is the point so...

Fail would mean one state or another using a veto to stop a war. OK. Wars aren't so good, usually. Usually, they mean death for average people and so they should be avoided. There are other kinds of wars though.

There are wars that prevent even more people from dying than would have if there had been no war. Now, you could say that the threat of Saddam lobbing a nuke or some other dirty weapons at Israel isn't a big enough threat to justify a war. OK. What about the Iraqi people though?

It is UN sanctions that have reportedly caused a half million or more Iraqis to die. Do you think that US combat arms would kill more? How many more Iraqis must die due to sanctions before it would be humane to end his regime by force of arms?

Fail? Failure would be to continue the status quo where a madman is relatively free to pursue the aquisition of nuclear and other weapons capable of massive destruction of human life. Failure would be to decry the removal of that madman because it might cost some lives when the same body that forbids action is the very body that mandates sanctions that have cost countless thousands already.

Failure would be for some members of the UNSC to use that body as a place to promote their own economic interests over the interests of Iraq's neighbours and the interests of the people of Iraq themselves. That would be a failure. It would also be hypocrisy on a massive scale.

[gunkulator]

"It is UN sanctions that have reportedly caused a half million or more Iraqis to die."

Um no. Saddam always had the power to end those sanctions whenever he wanted. This tendency of looking at the punishment but not at the actions that resulted in the punishment is troublesome.

Simply put. Saddam is a brutal dictator who has happily starved, gasses and conscripted his populace to support his evil policies. Throwing money and food his way only feeds the evil monster. It does nothing to get rid of the root cause.

The UN should be a the forefront of condemning him. France, Germany and Russia did not all simultaneously wake up one morning and embrace pacifism here. They want the Saddam's oil money via infrastructure contracts and they don't care what kind of a monster he is, as long as the money keeps rolling in. For this reason, the UN has failed.

Not the US is any better. Bush's oil buddies aren't getting a red cent because Saddam, quite logically, isn't going to deal with Bush II.

[MrBaggins]

The UN doesn't have any power in and of itself. Its only power is that confered on it, by its member states.

A number of resolutions have been tabled by the UN, regarding Iraqs proliferation of WMD's, prohibited ballistic missiles and UAV's. These are in the name of national and regional security.

Iraq has, for 12 years ignored the UN. The only entity it hasn't ignored, is the US (or US-led coalition.)

The only reason that there is any compliance AT ALL, is because the US are building up troops preparing to invade. Prior to the US build up, Iraq did not and would not permit weapons inspectors into the country... It had thrown them out 12 years ago.

The US, UK and a number of other countries want full and complete compliance now, of the numerous resolutions, or they are prepared to ignore the UN. The french, germans and russians will accept less stringent compliance.

When it comes to matters of national and regional security, the highest standard, not the lowest, should be the accepted norm.

The US and a number of other countries, is giving the UNSC a chance to fulfil their obligations to impose compliance. If they do not, then they will take matters into their own hands.

A resolution threatening 'serious consequences' means nothing if those consequences don't materialize after a material breach... and the Iraqi's are clearly in material breach, by reconstituting their weapons program (rebuilding the casting chambers for their missile program as a point in case.)

The UN, will, by not enforcing the highest desired level of compliance, become irrelevant.

Its fully within the rights of the US and other nations to unilaterally act to ensure strategic stability, AS sovereign nations. Independent action should NOT be necessary, but if the UN will not enforce its own resolutions strictly, AND if these issues are important enough to these nations, then these nations will take independent action.

The UN needs to enforce its own resolutions. Not in a week. Not in a month. Now. Completely.

If it does not, then yes... the UNSC is irrelevant.

MrBaggins

[gunkulator]

"Its fully within the rights of the US and other nations to unilaterally act to ensure strategic stability, AS sovereign nations. Independent action should NOT be necessary, but if the UN will not enforce its own resolutions strictly, AND if these issues are important enough to these nations, then these nations will take independent action."

The US is not the UN. It is up to the UNSC that created the resolution calling for "serious consequences" to define what those are to be. If they decide that serious consequences = nothing, then so be it. If the US insists on acting due to a UN mandate, it must suffer the restrictions imposed by that body. Anything else is pure unilateralism and we should not kid ourselves otherwise.

That being said, equating serious consequences with the status quo is a de facto faliure of UN of significantly collosal proportions. The UN is in serious danger of being reduced to nothing more than a way for well connected diplomats to live a life of luxury and leisure whilst avoiding parking tickets. I'm not advocating war, but 12 years of nothing more than figure wagging and stern statements against an unqualifiably evil regime is a sorry legacy.

[MrBaggins]

The US can operate independently of the UN. It doesn't need UN permission to go to war with another nation state.

It just so happens that its trying to resolve the matter through the UN first.

[Urban Ranger]

I posit that the OP asks a meaningless question.

When you say X fails, it means X does not or cannot perform the function it is supposed to perform. Herein lies the rub: to know that whether X fails, we must compare a situation where X is in use to one where X isn't.

For example, a lightbulb fails when it can no longer gives off light. Here, we know the scenario where the lightbulb works, so we can compare to the scenario where the lightbulb doesn't work.

However, this is not the case with the UN. More specificially, we do not - and cannot - know how the world would be like without it. To all we know, cockroaches might be running the place without UN.

Since we do not have a control case to compare against, asking whether the UN has failed or not is simply meaningless.

[MrBaggins]

True, but in a specific instance, the UN has failed to remove and prevent the proliferation of WMD's, BM's and UAV's in Iraq in a finite period... the last 12 years, given any amount of resolutions and any statement of 'serious consequences'.

Only ACTUAL consequences have punitive value with Saddam's regime, hence... the UN has failed in this specific case.

If its failed here... why won't and can't it fail in the future, in similar circumstances?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
True, but in a specific instance, the UN has failed to remove and prevent the proliferation of WMD's, BM's and UAV's in Iraq in a finite period... the last 12 years, given any amount of resolutions and any statement of 'serious consequences'.

How has it failed if we have no idea what would happen without the UN? Iraq might have blown the hell out of the place. Compare to that, isn't it a success we have at the moment?

[Japher]

It already failed. While we all want to say that if it bends to Bush's demands than it will fail, I say that it already failed by requiring Bush to even issue demands.

It has already failed as far as Bush, and thus the American ppl, are concerned, and by losing such a big support it has made a big error, and therefore did not acheive what it set out to do. Thus, it failed.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


How has it failed if we have no idea what would happen without the UN? Iraq might have blown the hell out of the place. Compare to that, isn't it a success we have at the moment?

This has nothing to do with 'blowing the hell out of the place'.

Its to do with non-proliferation of restricted weapons.

They had them, they still have them, and built more.

The aim is for them ultimately not to use them BUT that is to be achieved by them NOT HAVING THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

This is something that is CLEARLY measurable.

The UN has failed to disarm Iraq in the last 12 years.

[dannubis]

the un is useless because it has failed to comply to the foreign politics of the american governement ...

nato is outdated because it has failed to comply immediately to the foreign politics of the american governement ...

the kyoto agreements are useless because they do not match the american economical interests

the international tribunal in den haag is not recognised by the us because american citizens can't be judged by a foreign institution ... (read the american governement doesn't want to have to be kept responsible for its actions)

anyone sees a constant in this ?

it's not that these institutions are useless per se, but the are made pretty useless because the most important international player doesn't want to comply ...

[gunkulator]

"How has it failed if we have no idea what would happen without the UN? Iraq might have blown the hell out of the place. Compare to that, isn't it a success we have at the moment?"

That's a pretty thin soup you're offering up here. As an analogy, consider a parent who provides the physical needs of a child but fails to discipline the child when he/she misbehaves. It doesn't take long for the child to realize that parent's threats of punishment can blissful be ignored. Yes, the utter lack of any parent whatsoever would result in the demise of the child but on another level we are fundamentally talking about a failure in the parent.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by dannubis
anyone sees a constant in this ?

it's not that these institutions are useless per se, but the are made pretty useless because the most important international player doesn't want to comply ...

American loses alot of it's pull in a peaceful world.
Look at the fear mongering in the US (ie CNN etc.)
that should be good for a few billion for the pentagon.
They NEED an enemy (Russia, Iran, Iraq, NK,.... France?)

The UN is a success, they've delayed the Iraqi invasion for how long now?, may even be peramently delayed. They've forced the US to jusitfy itself before an assault.
and IMHO world public opinion supports miltiary action
ONLY with a UN mandate.

It is doing what it is designed to do. Be a brake on war.
That's why the US is peeved.

[MrBaggins]

Hang on, Ozz... one of the charters of the UN is to prevent proliferation of WMD, not just being a brake on war.

Also, the US has been going on its merry way, preparing for war. The UN hasn't seemed to slow the build up of troops one little bit, and it won't stop them moving into Iraq either.

The US has strategic concerns regarding the stability of the region, both in the proliferation or use of WMD by rogue states or sale of such weapons to terroristic groups, or the destablization of the oil supply from the region due to such potential threats. It has every right to remove the unstable element, even if its the only power that wishes to do so. The development of WMD or offensive Ballistic Missiles or UAV's by Iraq is completely unjustifiable, and as such gives all the justification needed to pacify the offending regime.

If Iraq doesn't want to be invaded, then they should fully comply now... including full disclosure of all bio and chemical agents (including material proof of disposal as appropriate.)

Saying that the UN has any actual power, without it enforcing its own resolutions is a huge joke. Its a simply a cozy club for diplomats in Manhattan.

MrBaggins

[dannubis]

it would however be a lot easer if the usa actually recognized the authority of the international tribunal, and got in with a few hundred man, took sadam out and bring him before this institution... In this way the guilty one (=SADAM) could be removed without any (or at least with an absolute minimum of) civilian (=innoscent) casualties.

But i have my doubts about the us governements willingness to end this conflict without spending millions of dollars on the war industry (and thus its lobby).

[gunkulator]

"It[US] has every right to remove the unstable element, even if its the only power that wishes to do so. "

Does Iraq have a similar right to remove the beligerent gov't that is openly threatening them? Perhaps you meant to say that the US has the power to remove Saddam, not the right. Or are you making a "might makes right" argument?

[MrBaggins]

The only reason why there are weapons inspectors in Iraq are that the US began building up troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Its entirely clear that the current Iraqi regime will not disarm voluntarily.

Its therefore a moot point whether the US would consider not going to war, and spending millions of dollars on its military; if it wants to remove theroretical terroristic threats, it has to go to war at some point, with Iraq. It is a priority to remove theoretical terroristic threats, ergo the US WILL go to war.

MrBaggins

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by gunkulator
"It[US] has every right to remove the unstable element, even if its the only power that wishes to do so. "

Does Iraq have a similar right to remove the beligerent gov't that is openly threatening them? Perhaps you meant to say that the US has the power to remove Saddam, not the right. Or are you making a "might makes right" argument?

Well, the US hasn't constituted any new capability that it didn't have prior to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. It entered as one of the 5 nuclear states, and has complied with every regulation to this point.

Iraq has constituted new capabilities subsequently, and is in violation of this standard... plain and simple. There is zero justification for its development of WMD, BM's and UAV's.

Iraq has every right to defend its sovereignty, by defensive, but not offensive measures.

MrBaggins

[gunkulator]

dannubis hits the nail on the head. This is about money and egos. Bush won't settle for just ol' Saddam going away. He wants to install a gov't favorably disposed to the US.

Iraq is a potential gold mine for development. The Iraqis don't have the technology to exploit their resources so they have called on the French, Germans and Russians to provide them with an industrial base. None of these countries gave a crap about the brutish regime that Saddam is running, as long as the money keeps flowing.

In the US, Bush's oil buddies are annoyed because they aren't making a nickle. With a new regime however... And yes, the military contractors won't mind so much either.

Sadly, things are worsened by the players involved. Bush has upped the ante so much that his entire presidency now hinges on invading Iraq. Fail to do so and he'll look like a bumbling idiot. Saddam meanwhile could collect his millions today and retire to Libya. Unfortunately he's even more of an egotist than Bush.

[MrBaggins]

If this was about oil revenue then why didn't the US install a favorable regime earlier? or install a favorable regime in Kuwait?

The only reasonable conclusion is that they don't really care about who's exporting the oil, as long as it keeps coming, for a reasonable price.

The new world order that has become apparent after September 11th, however, has caused a sea change in policy... making threats that didn't matter before matter now. This is why we are building up troops. If it was just about corporate oil revenues, we wouldn't be stationing troops, because Iraq is basically irrelevent in terms of US oil supply... there are many better places to invest capital in... irrespective.

Plus... oil in the Middle East runs out in 80 years... irrespective... and everyone knows it. Middle East posturing about oil, is just a last hurrah.


But WMD are forever...

MrBaggins

[gunkulator]

"If this was about oil revenue then why didn't the US install a favorable regime earlier? or install a favorable regime in Kuwait?"

Because Bush the Elder strictly followed the UN mandate which said nothing about going into Baghdad and removing Saddam. The Kuwaitis today are one of the few who do support Bush so I'd say there is a favorable regime there.

In any case Kuwait was a sideshow. Saddam wanted the massive oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. Kuwait was his Rhineland occupation. Saddam was threatening our (and Europe's) interests with the Saudis. And in case you forget, the Saudis also run a brutally oppresive regime, but hey, they're our friends so that's ok.

"because Iraq is basically irrelevent in terms of US oil supply... "

True. But that's today. Iraq has the potential for supplying a great deal more oil than it currently can today. What it needs is western help to develop that potential. There's no way Saddam will choose US companies for these plum deals. In fact he has already contracted with France, Germany and Russia. They are just dutifully supporting their benefactor.

"there are many better places to invest capital in... irrespective"

Also, true however dubya only cares about his backers who happen to be oil men.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by gunkulator
"If this was about oil revenue then why didn't the US install a favorable regime earlier? or install a favorable regime in Kuwait?"

Because Bush the Elder strictly followed the UN mandate which said nothing about going into Baghdad and removing Saddam. The Kuwaitis today are one of the few who do support Bush so I'd say there is a favorable regime there.

But there have been 12 years of time between then and now. Why now? Economics? No... the politics of fighting terrorism.

There is always an opportunity for having a more favorable regime... like leaving a general in charge of a country... which would have meant that the US was in defacto control of the Kuwaiti oil.

In any case Kuwait was a sideshow. Saddam wanted the massive oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. Kuwait was his Rhineland occupation. Saddam was threatening our (and Europe's) interests with the Saudis. And in case you forget, the Saudis also run a brutally oppresive regime, but hey, they're our friends so that's ok.

Right... but they very well might be next (as an target in the fight against terror) after a few more countries. It might not take shape as invasion, as per Iraq though.

"because Iraq is basically irrelevent in terms of US oil supply... "

True. But that's today. Iraq has the potential for supplying a great deal more oil than it currently can today. What it needs is western help to develop that potential. There's no way Saddam will choose US companies for these plum deals. In fact he has already contracted with France, Germany and Russia. They are just dutifully supporting their benefactor.

Why do you see Iraq as ever being fundemental in the supply of the US? The fact that Iraq *COULD* sell more oil is pretty irrelevent, except that the price of oil will drop if they do...

"there are many better places to invest capital in... irrespective"

Also, true however dubya only cares about his backers who happen to be oil men.

Canada is a much better site for investment of oil. They have somewhere from double to triple the oil reserves of the ME held in gravel slurry under their tundra. Its not quite as readily available as ME oil, but its theoretically LESS expensive to extract in the ultimate equation, due to it being on the same continent, and not subject to OPEC price control. American oil interests are most interested in investing in this new prospect, rather than the overexploited ME reserves.

MrBaggins

[gunkulator]

But there have been 12 years of time between then and now. Why now? Economics? No... the politics of fighting terrorism.

So we have an excuse now. Doesn't change anything.

There is always an opportunity for having a more favorable regime... like leaving a general in charge of a country... which would have meant that the US was in defacto control of the Kuwaiti oil.

Kuwait is rinkydink little nowheresville. Besides the US got kudos from other Arab kings and despots by reinstalling the same set of Kuwaiti kings and despots.

Right... but they very well might be next (as an target in the fight against terror) after a few more countries. It might not take shape as invasion, as per Iraq though.

The Saudis prefer to assassinate their leaders so that is probably what will happen there. That country has always been unstable which is why the king tries so hard to keep an iron grip on everything. We have to tread lightly in Saudi Arabia. If there is even a hint that the US is the true power behind the throne of the country that controls the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, well, you can just imagine the jihad.

"Why do you see Iraq as ever being fundemental in the supply of the US? "

I don't. However there is still a lot of money to be made by US oilmen in equipment, refining and other infrastructure. The oil itself doesn't have to come here.

Canada is a much better site for investment of oil.

Sure, but why not do both? This is a capitalist society afterall and expanding into new markets fuels growth and makes more people rich. Heck, Bill Gates hasn't needed to work another day for the last 10 years but there's always an emerging market somewhere that he's trying to tap.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by gunkulator
So we have an excuse now. Doesn't change anything.

Well... you say excuse... I say reason. Its only an excuse if it doesn't have justification. Would you like to justify Saddam having WMD?

Kuwait is rinkydink little nowheresville. Besides the US got kudos from other Arab kings and despots by reinstalling the same set of Kuwaiti kings and despots.

Still, if the US's primary concern was to control oil, then installing a military junta in Kuwait in the name of security, would have surely been the most beneficial financial outcome. Whats the current kudos/gallon ratio? Owning your own middle eastern oil state is surely better than a 'kudo', even from a Saudi prince, I'm thinking.

The Saudis prefer to assassinate their leaders so that is probably what will happen there. That country has always been unstable which is why the king tries so hard to keep an iron grip on everything. We have to tread lightly in Saudi Arabia. If there is even a hint that the US is the true power behind the throne of the country that controls the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, well, you can just imagine the jihad.

True... but don't these Arabs realize that the SUV drivers are keeping them and their harems in the manner to which they are accustomed?

"Why do you see Iraq as ever being fundemental in the supply of the US? "

I don't. However there is still a lot of money to be made by US oilmen in equipment, refining and other infrastructure. The oil itself doesn't have to come here.

Why, however, put money into an unstable region, if you don't have to? Its not like their aren't better bets in the world.

Thats why the French, Russians, et al are sh!tting bricks... because their hard earned investments are about to get co-opted.

Sure, but why not do both? This is a capitalist society afterall and expanding into new markets fuels growth and makes more people rich. Heck, Bill Gates hasn't needed to work another day for the last 10 years but there's always an emerging market somewhere that he's trying to tap.

There is a limited amount of captial to invest. Emerging technologies... like fuel cells and emerging markets like Canada offer better AND (more important) more stable returns. Any investment in the ME is unstable by the nature of the region.

MrBaggins

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Iraq has constituted new capabilities subsequently, and is in violation of this standard... plain and simple. There is zero justification for its development of WMD, BM's and UAV's.

You can say the same for Israel, NK, India, Pakistan.

[MrBaggins]

Israel developed a nuclear capability prior to the NPT in 1970.

India, NK and Pakistan haven't but they aren't destablising US Strategic concerns.

India and Pakistan are using nuclear weapons to create a new balance of power, regarding Kashmir.

NK is using nuclear development as a bargaining (read blackmailing chip) to get funding to bail out the bankrupt economy.

Neither India, NK nor Pakistan are interested in selling nukes... except theoretically to other bonefide nation states.

Israel would never disseminate nuclear devices, particularly to neighbors/terrorists.

MrBaggins

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Neither India, NK nor Pakistan are interested in selling nukes... except theoretically to other bonefide nation states.

I wouldn't be too sure about the DPRK.

[MrBaggins]

Well... Korea has only exported BM's to nation states to this point.

The US would get mightly pissed if a weapon that NK sold was ever used by a terrorist against US interests. The US would then have an actual target to attack, and wipe off the map, rather than an emphemeral, and elusive terrorist group.

Kim knows that if he sells a weapon to an independent group then its out of his control, and he is partially responsible for its use.

He has no death wish... this would not be in his interest, since he want himself and his heirs to rule Korea for eternity. Getting wiped off the map, because a weapon he proliferated to a terrorist group, just wouldn't be worth the dollars.

Better to get cash through blackmail, than actually go through with selling the weapon to an irresponsible buyer.

MrBaggins