Has the UN failed?

[lord of the mark]

something from oxblog on this topic

"First of all, I'd like to inject a dose or reality into conservative dreams and liberal nightmares about an unauthorized war with Iraq crippling of the United Nations. The past six months have made clear just how much the UN matters to Europe. 1441 played a critical role in persuading almost all of Europe's governments to support the United States.

If the US goes to war over a French and/or Russian veto, that will show that the French and Russian vetos are worthless, not that the UN is irrelevant.

As for "the system of collective security" that the NYT is so fond of, might I ask to whom it has provided security? I believe that the UN plays a critical role in international politics, but providing security is not something that it has ever been able to do. Ask the Bosnians. Ask the Kosovars. Ask the Rwandans. What the UN does do is help rebuild nations after dictators have wrecked them and/or the United States has overthrown those dictators with force."


I think this opinion makes sense.

[gunkulator]

Would you like to justify Saddam having WMD?

Can they reach us? No. Has Saddam been successfully contained for 12 years? Yes. Is there really a Clear and Present Danger to US? No. IMO, the first to use WMD in the region will be the embattled Israelis.

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

At the cost of losing all our allies not only the ME, but many other places. If we refused to reinstall the Kuwaiti royals, what kind of message would that send to the Saudis? Losing our interests in SA is too big a risk.

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

It's a tricky game they have to play. The amazing thing about SA given all the fundamentalism there is that it is still a monarchy and not a theocracy. The lesson of Iran is all too real for the royals in SA: Get too close to the Great Satan and we'll depose you.

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.

To quote the Onceler from Dr. Suess: If I didn't do it then someone else would.

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.

Technology investments do not typically provide stable returns. Also right now with interest rates at an all time low, there are ridiculous amounts of investment capital around.

Any investment in the ME is unstable by the nature of the region.

Not true. Except for a brief time in the 70's OPEC has been more than happy to provide our petroleum needs.

[Ozz]

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

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

Bingo!!!

US Strategic concerns are uneffected so it's OK. The US
and the UN can ignore it. Right the whole of Kashmir is
a powderkeg.

Where do you think Israel got the tech from to become
a nuclear power in less that 20 years?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ozz
Where do you think Israel got the tech from to become
a nuclear power in less that 20 years?

Sameplace as Iraq, France.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Sameplace as Iraq, France.

Same as India, France. again. But its not cheap, the
US paid for it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ozz
But its not cheap, the
US paid for it.

We paid the French to proliferate nuclear technology?

[Jack_www]

I really do think the UN is useless. They only things they do right is giving out humantrian aid and helping people in the thrid world. As far as prevent wars and such, the UN can never gets its act togather fast enought to act. Also they never can agree on anything. And even when they are able by some mircle to send peace keeping troops to a hotzone while the conflict is still ongoing, the troops dont do anything to protect people or stop mass killings. Some times the troops themselfs join in. So with all things I dont think the UN will ever be usefull for peace.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by gunkulator


Can they reach us? No. Has Saddam been successfully contained for 12 years? Yes. Is there really a Clear and Present Danger to US? No. IMO, the first to use WMD in the region will be the embattled Israelis.

They can reach us... yes... witness the 1993 WTC bombing. So... yes, they are a clear and present danger. They can also use WMD's to blackmail other nations, like Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, given half a chance.

At the cost of losing all our allies not only the ME, but many other places. If we refused to reinstall the Kuwaiti royals, what kind of message would that send to the Saudis? Losing our interests in SA is too big a risk.

The only significant reason we are allied with SA, is to ensure good oil supply. If we owned our own oil rich state, then it would be irrelevent whether the Saudi's liked it or not. So what if they don't sell us oil... or that OPEC won't sell us oil? We would have more than enough oil, under our thumb.

*snip*
To quote the Onceler from Dr. Suess: If I didn't do it then someone else would.

and someone else is about to lose their shirt, due to a regime change in Iraq.

Technology investments do not typically provide stable returns. Also right now with interest rates at an all time low, there are ridiculous amounts of investment capital around.

Very little of which is being exported to foreign projects right now.

Not true. Except for a brief time in the 70's OPEC has been more than happy to provide our petroleum needs.

Them being happy to supply us with oil for cash, is not the same thing as it being wise to invest in capital projects in countries where the regime may not be stable... like, say... Iraq.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We paid the French to proliferate nuclear technology?

The Israelis couldn't have afforded both a nuclear
program and a large enough conventional force to
take on the Arabs without large injections of cash
and weapons. I believe the US is still supplying them.

If the US didn't want a nuclear Israel, they could have
just pulled the plug.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ozz

Bingo!!!

US Strategic concerns are uneffected so it's OK. The US
and the UN can ignore it. Right the whole of Kashmir is
a powderkeg.

*SNIP*

Absolutely. The US should be prepared to go to war to protect US Strategic Concerns. I'd expect nothing else.

Whether the world agrees doesn't matter one little bit.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Absolutely. The US should be prepared to go to war to protect US Strategic Concerns. I'd expect nothing else.

Whether the world agrees doesn't matter one little bit.

Exactly the attitude that has the rest of the world thinking the US maybe is just a thug after the oil.

[MrBaggins]

Explain why the US shouldn't preserve US Strategic concerns, then? Because it might be viewed as a bully?

I'd rather be labeled a bully than let an 'off the reservation dictator' have nuclear weapons and biological weapons, thanks very much.

[MrBaggins]

As a side topic, consider....

"Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared"
(The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli)

In this case... its better to be feared... Islamic Extremists simply don't understand the 'live and let live' principal... so why try and be popular?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
I'd rather be labeled a bully than let an 'off the reservation dictator' have nuclear weapons and biological weapons, thanks very much.

Bit late then for Pakistan then are'nt ya.

"off the reservation?" Don't like North America Indians?

You should try out for the lead if they ever do a remake
of All in the Family, your a natural.

Mr Baggins? I think Mr Bunker is closer to the truth.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
As a side topic, consider....

"Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared"
(The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli)

Machiavelli and his kind made and kept Italy a total
basketcase until almost the 1900's.

Machiavelli=

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ozz


Bit late then for Pakistan then are'nt ya.

*SNIP*

Pakistan isn't exactly threatening the US. If you've not noticed Musharraf and the White House have been awfully friendly lately.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ozz


Machiavelli and his kind made and kept Italy a total
basketcase until almost the 1900's.
*SNIP*

and lets just avoid the topic at hand...

Machiavelli is just as relevant today as he was back in the day. Not much has changed in the nature of human discourse or diplomacy.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Pakistan isn't exactly threatening the US. If you've not noticed Musharraf and the White House have been awfully friendly lately.

Just like Saddam and the White house before and during
the Iraq/Iran war.

[MrBaggins]

Pakistan is now partially under the protection of US forces... due to its cooperation. They want the cooperation with the US, for economic and security reasons and might ultimately fully disarm, given a guarantee of US protection.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
and lets just avoid the topic at hand...

Machiavelli is just as relevant today as he was back in the day. Not much has changed in the nature of human discourse or diplomacy.

Err. Democracy, the French Revolution, Public education.

Italy wasn't a country until just before WW1. Couldn't
even with the Barbary pirates making slave raids on
the coasts of Italy.

So much for the genuis of Machiavelli, a recipe for chaos.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Pakistan is now partially under the protection of US forces... due to its cooperation. They want the cooperation with the US, for economic and security reasons and might ultimately fully disarm, given a guarantee of US protection.

ROFL

[MrBaggins]

which discredits him how?

His writings were seminal works on political philosophy.

[lord of the mark]

It would be well to keep seperate the 2 questions A> does the US have Casus belli if the UN fails to act 2. Is the UN a failure should it fail to act.

The US has the legal basis for action in this case, unique compared to the other situations under discussion, because the 1991 war (initiated as result of Iraqi aggression) was ended by a ceasefire conditional on Iraqi disarmament. Iraq having failed to disarm, the US and Iraq are again in a state of war, without respect to UNSC action.

This however does not establish that the UN is a failure for failing to deal with the Iraqi, problem. Or at least not for that reason alone. As has been pointed out, the development of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan, though a far different situation strategically, was also a problem the UNSC proved unable to deal with. As was argued in the quote i posted above, those claiming that failure of the UN to act now would be THE definitive failure of the UNSC as a security organization, have an unreasonably idealistic view of what the UNSC has ever been. Again the UNSC manifestly failed wrt to Kosovo and Rwanda. The UNSC (not just the specialized agencies) has value - as a place where some issues can be discussed profitably, as a basis for UN peacekeeping operations WHERE there is already a peace to keep, and for helping rebuild failed states. A failure now certainly lessens the value of the UNSC in US eyes, as far as addressing a problem like Iraq which the US sees not only as a problem to itself, but also to the region and the world. One cannot deny the right of other permanent member of the UNSC to judge differently from the US what a threat is - the way they have handled it, passing a resolution they did not take seriously, and making the US the issue rather than Iraq, has certainly impacted US views of the behaviour of certain permanent members. However this does not mean the US will not in the future participate in the UNSC, but that we may take a narrower view of what can be accomplished there, and how things occur there.

[Ned]

It's not that the U.N. will not act forcefully when the breach of international security is extreme as we saw in 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait, but it is clear that the U.N. will never authorize use of force when only the U.S. and some of its allies national interests are at stake. It appears rather that the U.N. wants to remain "neutral" on international disputes involving United States.

Obviously, opponents of the US will take heart. As well, the US will take heed.

[Odin]

The UN only works if there are 2 or more super-powers to keep each other's power in check. If a super-power dosen' comply with a UNSC resolution the other super-powers will work with member nations to get the other super-power to comply.

[Drake Tungsten]

The UN only works if there are 2 or more super-powers to keep each other's power in check.

Bullshit. The UN was effectively paralyzed during the Cold War because the 2 superpowers vetoed each other's initiatives. The collapse of the Soviet Union gave the UN a new lease on life, but it seems like the French are willing to throw that away...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ozz


Machiavelli and his kind made and kept Italy a total
basketcase until almost the 1900's.

Machiavelli=

Machiavelli was a product of his times, and he wrote using historical examples. You think he created the Italy of his times?