The UN Security Council will authorise a war against Iraq. Not because they want to, but because if they don't and the USA goes ahead anyway (which they will), the UN will appear absolutely pointless and powerless. The EU introduced the Euro as a means to creating an economic/political block to stand up against the giant USA/Japan economy. But they don't yet have the consolidated power, and the influence over the UN, to really push their own agenda to the extent that the USA can. So they will cave, or look powerless, for now. So, I'm betting that in about nine days to two weeks, the SC approves action against Iraq.
My prediction is that there will be no WAR, I still haven’t figured out the escape goat to be, but as much as it is necessary for Bush, he needs to find the back-door to all of this.
My prediction is that the Busheviks and their successors will ignore the UN, orchestrate a disaster of unpredictable scale, and then solicit the remnants of the UN to pick up the incredibly jumbled wreckage of the Middle East as America "brings their boys home" to dissonant fanfare.
The UNSC will authorize a war because if they don't they will be pointless and powerless. And not because of the US: it's because the SC pumps out resolutions that are pointless for being powerless/unenforced.
The UN simply can't win in this situation. A resolution authorizing force in the present circumstances erodes the Charter considerably and potentially fatally.
How so? Seems to me war is imminent because not only as adam said But the UN WILL be pointless and powerless unless some action is taken.
The UN most valuable responsibility it’s perhaps to safeguard international laws. In this contest, it is impossible that the UN will spell out “Military Action” against a severing country under the circumstances that we find ourselves with Iraq. The “attack in self defense” argument it’s just not real in this case. US can risk a second resolution twisting arms to make sure that it isn’t vetoed and hope that the world community will close their eyes and let them continue with the small group of the willing. Or, since they know they can never get a clear spelled mandate for war. Act unilaterally optimistic that it will be patched and forgotten in a couple of years. The UN has a lot more values then this Iraqi crisis, only the US is turning it into a center stage but it will not become irrelevant.
The problem (for the US) with the UN Two problems arise here: - to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war: This is the primary aim of the UN. Period. It is not well-accustomed to authorizing the use of force. - that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest: It is difficult to establish the "common interest" when the first thing you have to do in an "Us vs. Them" situation is exclude "them" from the "common". We can also consider Chapter VII of the charter, pertaining to Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression. Outlined therein are some of the issues that arise before combat is acceptable. And here is where things get sticky. Because how many member states can argue that the US has not compelled the UN to undertake VII.40-42 in good faith? If the US wants the honest and open support of member states, it ought to conduct itself forthrightly. Conservative pundits praise Bush's strategy: threaten the world with something worse in order to get what you actually want. It's just a form of terrorism (e.g. extortion) when you get right down to it, but it's apparently fair because it's the Americans doing the extorting. :bugeye: Ordinarily I would think that the council would authorize action just because it's the US. But I'm not willing to bet either way this time. The security council might say go, but if it comes down to a general resolution, the general assembly might be a bit more difficult. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nice work, Tiassa. I feel safe in predicting the UN will be weaker after the occupation of Iraq. When I am made General Secretary Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I will introduce a resolution that the Security Council must include all Members in decisions involving use of force: This would include a concise presentation of facts, and a yes/no, one country, one vote, with no abstentions, no vetos. A tie vote would default to other means. On issues of commencing war, I think the world would value Leichtenstein's opinion as much as the USAs. Furthermore, we would resolve that if the majority against commencing hostilities is 90% or more, the delegate who introduced the war cry gets bent over the desk for 50 bare-assed lashes on live TV. But I'll probably never be Secretary-General Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I do not believe the UN will authorize force. France, Russia, and China will vote against war in favor of a substantial increase in powers for the inspectors. A defecting Iraq scientist, now in the Philippines (I think) reports that Iraq has significant weapons held deep underground. If the inspectors can find these facilities through other scientists then there is real hope that they can do their job and make war unnecessary. But they will need substantial armed support and more relevant intelligence if they are to succeed. There is no real urgency to this war apart from the Bush reelection campaign and his desire to test his new military toys, whose enormous cost he must justify by actually finding a use for them. I do not believe Bush will go it alone. If he does not receive UN authority and in the light of the massive worldwide record size anti-war demonstrations, he knows that he will be seen by the rest of the world very much like an imperialist aggressor. However, he is arrogant and simple minded so such a dangerous combination might well result in an unnecessary war. I hope that he has advisors that have more intelligence. I strongly suspect that the size of those demonstrations have taken both Bush and Blair by surprise and I further suspect that that news has encouraged many others who were undecided to become anti-war. If there are more demonstrations scheduled then we should expect even greater record numbers. If anti-war had not been so closely linked to anti-patriotism in the US then I'm sure far more Americans would be demonstrating as well. But if the UN does not authorize force and Bush does go it alone then there will be serious ramifications for both the UN and the USA. The rest of the world will see the USA as uncontrollable and not worthy of any further trust or respect. Most of the rest of the world already see the USA as aggressively arrogant and this will simply confirm it. The UN will survive but the USA will be seen as an outsider. It will seriously erode any confidence for the USA in future conflicts. And at that point I can't quite visualize the resultant chaos.
Cris, I hate it, but I think the second scenario you posted is the more likely. But I hope (what a bleak word that is) your prediction is right.
The Security Counsel said in SCR 1441: "serious consequences" and the US is a Member and within the UN Charter provisions above can permissibly enforce "serious consequences" directly.
Mr. G, those are the most oblique war cries ever drafted. Examples of authorized actions include demonstration, blockade, and "other actions", etc. There is nothing much there but tippy-toeing around. Trying to find justification for concepts like Invasion and Occupation within the resolutions of an organization for peace, it's like barging through mosques on a search for WMDs.
Mr. G., Mr. Blair. Mr. Blair, Mr. G. Mr. G, you remind me of a caption under a photo of Blair I saw at the BBC website: "Blair--protesters need to listen to whole story". Now, first off, only Messrs. Blair and Bush can give us the "whole story" that they would like us to believe, and as any reasonably careful examination of the news will show, this is obviously not the case. However, you make a similar mistake as Mr. Blair (or a BBC photo editor) makes: The assumption appears to be that antiwar protesters have not been paying attention. The assumption appears to be that antiwar protesters aren't listening. Well, it depends on what you call listening. Yes, Mr. Blair, we hear you. But we don't buy it. After hearing as much of the story as Bush and Blair are willing to cough up, people still aren't buying it the way Mr. Blair would hope, and so he is left to assert that antiwar sentiments are uninformed. This is your error, as well, Mr. G. Thank you for posting VII.42 of the UN Charter, but your presumptuous logic errs: In terms of political capital, this is worth less than the paper it's written on. I'm curious if you'd be so kind as to address a point already mentioned: - How many member states can argue that the US has not compelled the UN to undertake VII.40-42 in good faith? Can we really say that the US has acted in good faith in its Iraqi policy? If we forget about Reagan, Poppy Bush, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, &c. &c. &c., yes. If we pretend the US and UK never stroked a dictator in Iran (Palahvi), pretend we never funded a tyrant in Iraq (Hussein), pretend we've never funded or supplied Israeli atrocities against Palestinians, pretend we never recruited the Taliban (there's your al Qaeda-Iraq connection--the GOP!) .... In the end, any member state with enough time to kill and pride to stake can drag down the general assembly. Any diplomat in the body who is simply sick and tired of playing doormat to US duplicity and aggression, who is unwilling to let the US do the "right thing" unless assured that we will stop wrecking situations until combat is the only "right thing" to do, can rock the boat. The Bush administration hinges on legalisms because it has no integrity to stand on. It's not like he's alone in wrecking things (hint--Clinton is the only president missing from the Saudi Embassy TV spot that's been making the rounds for the last several months); but if Bush is as bright as his supporters would like us to pretend, what about dishonesty, usurpation, petrolust, and warfare is going to work this time that has failed in the past? :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
hypewaders: "other actions" is whatever the SC decides. "oblique" affirms the Charter's articles are ambiguous and open to interpretation. tiassa: au Contraire. I'm more than willing to stipulate anti-war protestors have been paying attention, have been listening, and have made their decisions and formulated their actions/responses accordingly. My mistake, as you'll probably see it, really is that I don't agree with the assessments of the facts, or lack thereof, being put forth by anti-war protestors; I estimate them to not represent my best interests nor the best interests of the US -- as I see them, or envision them. The fact that that may cause you and other anti-war protestors some measure of discomfort is not terribly discomforting to me, the same as the discomfort I might feel over the protestations of yourself and your fellow protestors doesn't cause you to lose any sleep over me. We both have subscribed to our respective visions of the world and the parts we play in it and the means by which we accomplishment our visions. We have our respective preferences and our respective biases and, at the end of the day, neither of us can be certain of satisfaction in those important matters. But we both stand and speak in the hopes that unanimity won't inadvertantly be our downfall for our having embraced a single, but ultimately misguided vision of the world. It's better that our respective visions earn their realization in incremental steps, no? That having being said, unlike Viet Nam, I think that in this instance anti-war protestors are fighting the wrong battle -- and a losing one, at that. And that potential outcome doesn't bother me at all.
Hmmm ... misunderstanding afoot On this particular occasion, and while I thank you for that note, it's actually beside the point. The device is more what's at play. I understand what you're after when you note UNC-VII.42, but part of what I don't think you're accounting for is that other people read it differently. The Bush administrtaion and most of the American public may believe that we've attempted every peaceful option, but we've only really tried one, and it wasn't that great to begin with. Regardless of the UN's role in that situation, it's the truth. And here I reiterate my earlier point, which I do admit was buried amid partisan rhetoric: - In the end, any member state with enough time to kill and pride to stake can drag down the general assembly. Any diplomat in the body who is simply sick and tired of playing doormat to US duplicity and aggression, who is unwilling to let the US do the "right thing" unless assured that we will stop wrecking situations until combat is the only "right thing" to do, can rock the boat. The actual error I think you're making is not the same error necessarily as Mr. Blair, but rather of the same device. I do confess, it wasn't well-written for my purposes now that I look back through it. But you quote UNC-VII.42 and make a fairly confident declaration thereafter; well, yeah, but it doesn't actually settle the case, no matter how much some people would like it to. Some people may be inclined to call the US out on matters of good faith, as we've shown the UN very little over the last ten years. That factor, combined with the overall purpose of the UN (see "Preamble")--being to avert and prevent wars, not authorize them--leaves the "serious consequences" of 1441 ... rather up in the air. I say this as an assessment of the situation, not as a political posture; regardless of what people may think the situation indicates, the reality is that others with the leverage to do so might choose to disagree. Anyway, an occasional two-draft post wouldn't kill me to write. Hope I made myself more clear. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
UN will always win! The UN is not a single identity but an identity representing the world community, and as long as countries require to discuss and search for consensus and guidance among the international community. There will always be UN. What ever the outcome with Iraq, the UN as an institutions will not be affected at all, as it was never before affected when US vetoed key issues of Israel disobeyed its resolutions. After all this, life will go on with the additional scars of our actions, nothing less. :m:
Mr. G, I think it can be shown from the UN's own charter and various other UN precedent that this proposed invasion has no legal basis. I'll be willing to work on that some later, but gotta fly now. If you want to get a head start, see what reference to "Peace Through War" you can find in the intent or resolutions of the UN. If I remember right, UN forces have always been called Peacekeeping Troops and not Crusaders.
Microzoft, If the US engages in war unilaterally without UN approval, it clearly undermines the UN and shows that it has really no say... that will definitely plant doubts in the minds of everyone about the usefulness of the UN.. it will be a mockery of UN..
