Why the Security Council Failed
By MICHAEL J. GLENNON

From the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs (www.foreignaffairs.org).

"The tents have been struck," declared South Africa's prime minister, Jan Christian Smuts, about the League of Nations' founding. "The great caravan of humanity is again on the march." A generation later, this mass movement toward the international rule of law still seemed very much in progress. In 1945, the League was replaced with a more robust United Nations, and no less a personage than U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull hailed it as the key to "the fulfillment of humanity's highest aspirations." The world was once more on the move.

Earlier this year, however, the caravan finally ground to a halt. With the dramatic rupture of the UN Security Council, it became clear that the grand attempt to subject the use of force to the rule of law had failed.

In truth, there had been no progress for years. The UN's rules governing the use of force, laid out in the charter and managed by the Security Council, had fallen victim to geopolitical forces too strong for a legalist institution to withstand. By 2003, the main question facing countries considering whether to use force was not whether it was lawful. Instead, as in the nineteenth century, they simply questioned whether it was wise.

The beginning of the end of the international security system had actually come slightly earlier, on September 12, 2002, when President George W. Bush, to the surprise of many, brought his case against Iraq to the General Assembly and challenged the UN to take action against Baghdad for failing to disarm. "We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions," Bush said. But he warned that he would act alone if the UN failed to cooperate.

Washington's threat was reaffirmed a month later by Congress, when it gave Bush the authority to use force against Iraq without getting approval from the UN first. The American message seemed clear: as a senior administration official put it at the time, "we don't need the Security Council."
http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/20030422faessayv82n3_glennon.html?pagewanted=1

An excellent article, that reflects the United Nations' steadily decreasing relevance and potency in a unipolar world. Long, but very much worth it.

That link is a subscription-only article.
Unknown News (http://www.unknownnews.net/) has a login (username "unknownnews13" password "unknown") that it says is free for use.

And it's important to note that the article points out that the UNSC did not fail so much as it was attacked by Junior over Iraq. The problem, in short, with the UNSC is in fact the USA.

Unknown News looks like the bastard child of al-jezeera and the unibomber minifesto. ;) Apparently Bush is the source of all evil.

I didn't need a fringe website to tell me that ....

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
And it's important to note that the article points out that the UNSC did not fail so much as it was attacked by Junior over Iraq. The problem, in short, with the UNSC is in fact the USA. try actually reading the article plz kthxbye.
Originally posted by tiassa
I didn't need a fringe website to tell me that ....

:m:,
Tiassa :cool: Most people with a shred of knowledge in this area realize that The International Council of Foreign Relations is hardly a "fringe website".

try actually reading the article plz kthxbye.
I did before I posted.

Unknown News looks like the bastard child of al-jezeera and the unibomber minifesto.
Nope, it's a site that posts news stories from these sources. (http://www.unknownnews.net/sources.html)

Apparently Bush is the source of all evil.
Nope. Not all evil. But just because you're not the "source of all evil", doesn't mean you're not a criminal who should have been locked up several times over allready. Or that you don't have blood on your hands.

The entire premise of the essay is that the UNSC failed because, as reality will always have it, member states acted in their own personal interests first and foremost. The United States, in effort to achieve its agenda, lobbied the UNSC to actively enforce its own law. Thus, last November, 1441 passed unanimously, acknowledging that Iraq was in material breach of 687 and all following resolutions, and demanding utmost compliance lest they face "serious consequences".

However, due to other members of the UNSC placing priority on containing the singular American superpower first and enforcing UNSC resolutions a distant second, the UNSC fragmented. France voted to support 1441 because there was no other viable choice to appear rational while clawing desperately to maintain their relevance as a power. Then, when Iraq showed lackluster compliance with even a third chance to play by the rules, France still opposed corrective action in the form of military intervention - the very sort of action that 1441 mandated in event of anything short of Saddam dropping to his knees and fellating each UNSCOM inspector. France went to each UNSC meeting not with the objective of dealing with Saddam, but with the objective of keeping themselves influential.

Second to this, many nations' economic interests in the murderous Ba'ath regime (most notable France, Germany, and Russia) were preclusive to any inkling they had to actually bring Saddam to justice. France and Germany were receiving clost to 20% of their pre-war oil from Iraq alone. Russia, whose largest export is oil herself, feared that a new Iraq unbridled by economic sanctions would not join OPEC and flood the energy market with cheap hydrocarbon fuel, thus mitigating their largest source of income, bringing the already wallowing Russian economy further to its knees.

The UNSC dissolved into a mass of quarreling member states, each one acting out of their own personal interests. There was no opposition to the war because of its ostensible violation of the UN Charter. Nobody was that altruistic. This was the first time the UNSC was truly tested in that it didn't have something that each permanent member could wholeheartedly agree upon. There was no median to be found, and the UNSC remained deadlocked, unable to reach a verdict.

The UN has lost its relevance as a forum of neutrality. The UNSC has lost its potency as an amalgamation of global law enforcement. This is not because of some phantom AmeriKKKan President who squeezes Iraqi babies into oil to put on his pancakes, but because the UNSC, like all past forms of pluralist world government, is a noble but idealistic nostrum with little basis on the reality of human nature.

Wow, those must be the really cheap seats you're sitting in there stokes.
The UN is not a world government
So when you say that it "dissolved into a mass of quarreling member states", you're ignoring the reality that it was never meant to be anything else.
The whole fuppin' point of the UN is to be a mass of quarrelling states, because it was decided that it was far better to have a mass of quarelling states than to have an empty room while the states were off at war with each other.

Does the UNSC need reform? Yes, especially with the veto power the permenant members have. Is it a failure? At what? Preventing the Iraq invasion? Yes - but that's not what it was meant to do. The UN is the forum, not the enforcer.

What would you have us do, create a UN that enforces international law by military force? I can't see everyone lining up to support that idea. Hell, even the ICC, set up with a specifc remit to try war criminals, didn't get support from everyone - the US, Israel, Libya and a few others didn't want to support it. Mainly because they're the worst offenders, it's true, but still.

Imagine how much support you'd get for a UN that wasn't just a forum, but an enforcement mechanism as well...

"Earlier this year, however, the caravan finally ground to a halt. With the dramatic rupture of the UN Security Council, it became clear that the grand attempt to subject the use of force to the rule of law had failed."

Subject use of force to the ule of law? HHmm, thatll be why the USA invaded iraq then, to subject the force of law to the use of force.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Wow, those must be the really cheap seats you're sitting in there stokes.
The UN is not a world government
So when you say that it "dissolved into a mass of quarreling member states", you're ignoring the reality that it was never meant to be anything else.
The whole fuppin' point of the UN is to be a mass of quarrelling states, because it was decided that it was far better to have a mass of quarelling states than to have an empty room while the states were off at war with each other.

Does the UNSC need reform? Yes, especially with the veto power the permenant members have. Is it a failure? At what? Preventing the Iraq invasion? Yes - but that's not what it was meant to do. The UN is the forum, not the enforcer.Not a world government, no. I used the wrong monicker.

However, the premise remains the same. Yes, the UNSC is a forum. But it is also an enforcer. They couldn't enforce their past resolutions WRT Iraq, and when prompted to by some of their membership, they couldn't even bring about an amended means of enforcement.

That the coalition this go around went into Iraq without approval (or disapproval) of the UNSC is glaringly indicative of its impotency and irrelevance.

How the hell does the UN enforce? THROUGH member states' standing armies. The UN does not have an army. Nor does the UN charter ask for an army. All armed forces or peace workers must be supplied by member nations.

So if you want to talk about the UN's deficiencies you should first understand what the UN's capacity is.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Not a world government, no. I used the wrong monicker.

However, the premise remains the same. Yes, the UNSC is a forum. But it is also an enforcer. They couldn't enforce their past resolutions WRT Iraq, and when prompted to by some of their membership, they couldn't even bring about an amended means of enforcement.

That the coalition this go around went into Iraq without approval (or disapproval) of the UNSC is glaringly indicative of its impotency and irrelevance.

First of all you are thinking of the UN in the wrong light. It doesn't enforce anything, it is up to the member countries to ratify those recomendations. In many regards the UN in many regards is like a Loby group. It just so happens that this group happens to have a lot of clout. Do not fool yourself into beliving those men in the smurf helmets report to the UN. They do not, the report directly to the leader of the country they serve. Troops are merely loaned.

Saying the UN failed because they didn't vote for military action in Iraq is like Democrats saying that Democracy failed because Al Gore wasn't elected in the last election.

In the end the credibility of the UN lies on one thing. If WoMD are found in Iraq since that is what the case against Iraq is based off of:

- If these weapons are indeed found, it would show the inspectors in thier current state were not/could not properly due their job. Countries will second guess UN reports and resolutions, Less credibility.

+1 US
- 10 UN

- If no WoMD are found in Iraq then it will show that the recomendations of the weapons inspectors were warrented. The Inspectors did thier job and they did it well, looking back in hindsight countries will be more apt the belive the most credible source of information and in light of this.

+1 UN
- 10 US

Countries don't like to feel they have been used or made fools of. If things turn out to be the later they are less likely to follow behind the banner. It's the age old "Never cry wolf" syndrome.