A show of supremacy: USA moves embassy to Jerusalem

[ddt]

One Mister Saddam Hussein would like to have a quiet word with you, regarding 1990-1991 and your incredibly false statement. So too would a few people in Korea. If you actually read the articles around which the collective security provisions are written, you will find that the UN can in fact compel, and it takes the UNSCR to do it. It's not often done.

Those did not actually force nations to take an action. They have no power to enforce their own rulings.

Bob is absolutely right there. The UN, specifically the SC, cannot compel any state to do something, the best they can do is authorize the use of force by other states against the offending state. Such authorization is done by a "Chapter VII" UNSC resolution, and often it's not clear whether a UNSCR is a Chapter VI or Chapter VII resolution because it's not spelled out in the wording. The resolutions against Saddam's Iraq are a case in point: the US and UK argued the existing resolutions authorized the use of force, whereas France, Russia and China thought not.

ETA: I mean the resolutions from 2002/2003 are contentious, those from 1990/1991 are not.

 

[theprestige]

The UNSC can't actually compel anything any more than GA votes can.

It's not compulsion which makes UNSC votes significant.

However between the two, GA resolutions are a more accurate description of the opinion of the UN's membership as a whole because GA resolutions cannot be vetoed by anyone.

That doesn't mean they matter very much. Indeed, the opinion of the UN's membership as a whole doesn't really matter much--especially not compared to the opinions that emerge from the deliberations of the five permanent members of the UNSC.

 

[Checkmite]

One Mister Saddam Hussein would like to have a quiet word with you, regarding 1990-1991 and your incredibly false statement.

I believe the same Mister Saddam Hussein would've liked to have a quiet word with you regarding 2003 but he can't, because he was put to death three years later as the result of a military invasion by the US that took place contrary to the provisions of a UN Security Council resolution and the stated opinions of the overwhelming majority of its then-members, including three of the veto power members.

 

[Checkmite]

It's not compulsion which makes UNSC votes significant.

Then....what does, in your opinion? For the second time.

 

[Checkmite]

It's not compulsion which makes UNSC votes significant.

Then....what is it? For the second time.

 

[theprestige]

Then....what does, in your opinion? For the second time.

The second time?

Then....what is it? For the second time.

Oh.

Okay, sure: The UNSC gives the world's major powers a venue to discuss matters that touch on global stability and their own national security, avoiding misunderstandings and unnecessary escalations. An institution like the UNSC would have prevented the first World War. I think it probably could have prevented the second World War, as well. With the advent of nuclear weapons and the establishment of the MAD doctrine, the UNSC is even more important as an underwriter of world peace.

The question of compulsion is irrelevant to this core function of the UNSC. The resolutions themselves are secondary.

 

[Checkmite]

The UNSC gives the world's major powers a venue to discuss matters that touch on global stability and their own national security, avoiding misunderstandings and unnecessary escalations.

Can you give an example of a time the UNSC has actually served that function - i.e., avoiding misunderstandings, and/or unnecessary escalations, between the world's major powers?

 

[Degeneve]

An institution like the UNSC would have prevented the first World War. I think it probably could have prevented the second World War, as well.

As a matter of fact, the League of Nations, which was the forerunner of the UN did not prevent WW II from happening.

It is however true that the USA never became a member and that Germany, Italy and Japan withdrew from the organisation before WW II.

While I agree that the UN and the UNSC are great tools I am not sure they are sufficient to prevent large (or even small) scale wars in any case. After all they could not prevent the Rwandan genocide from happening or the USA to **** up the whole ME as from 2003.

 

[webfusion]

Acheson Rule

The Palestinians have just realized they can now head towards being admitted as a full State member of the UN, using the Acheson Rule (UN Res. 377-A).

This Emergency Session vote on Jerusalem was a preliminary test --- and they passed it with flying colors.

Now comes the request to the UNSC for admittance as a State of Palestine, and a guaranteed American VETO. Arising from that, another Emergency Session will be called under the Acheson Rule (aka "Uniting for Peace") which provides for the General Assembly to essentially overrride the deadlock in the UNSC.

In other words, in January 2018, the State of Palestine will likely become a UN member (escalated from Observer status).

I happen to think it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory, but the fact remains they'll look upon it as a victory.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The Palestinians have just realized they can now head towards being admitted as a full State member of the UN, using the Acheson Rule (UN Res. 377-A).

This Emergency Session vote on Jerusalem was a preliminary test --- and they passed it with flying colors.

Now comes the request to the UNSC for admittance as a State of Palestine, and a guaranteed American VETO. Arising from that, another Emergency Session will be called under the Acheson Rule (aka "Uniting for Peace") which provides for the General Assembly to essentially overrride the deadlock in the UNSC.

In other words, in January 2018, the State of Palestine will likely become a UN member (escalated from Observer status).

I happen to think it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory, but the fact remains they'll look upon it as a victory.

Interesting. Don't know how it would be pyrrhic as our favorite settler colony can't even throw 16 years old girls into dungeons for life without scrutiny these days, and has a couple of trained armies at their borders waiting for a silly move to happen.

 

[JJM 777]

our favorite settler colony can't even throw 16 years old girls into dungeons for life without scrutiny

How lamentable.

and has a couple of trained armies at their borders

Hm. I think all neighbouring countries either walk in the leash of USA, or understand the military significance of 100% US support to Israel, or have too many problems of their own to attack anyone else. I don't see this threat scenario at all.

 

[JJM 777]

When was the last time the UN voted to condemn something the US did?

There is the annual crushing 99% - 1% vote to condemn the embargo on Cuba.

 

[JJM 777]

UNSC (...) It was a good design then, and it's still a good design today.

Some countries having "veto rights" and "permanent seats" is the most perverse depiction of "respect for democracy and equality of humans". It makes the whole UN morally dead and philosophically meaningless to the core.

 

[Giz]

Some countries having "veto rights" and "permanent seats" is the most perverse depiction of "respect for democracy and equality of humans". It makes the whole UN morally dead and philosophically meaningless to the core.

The UN is morally flawed due to dictatorships having voting rights. That flaw means that it is only a talking shop where countries can discuss their self interest - it has no moral authority (unlike a body of democracies).

As a real-politik talking shop , it makes perfect sense for the most powerful countries to have a veto - it prevents them from having to veto the old fashioned way (with force)

 

[theprestige]

Some countries having "veto rights" and "permanent seats" is the most perverse depiction of "respect for democracy and equality of humans". It makes the whole UN morally dead and philosophically meaningless to the core.

What do you think is the purpose of the security council?

 

[Roofgardener]

Did anybody happen to notice that yesterday the entirety of the OIC unanimously declared that it no longer recognizes the US as the impartial facilitator of the Israel/Palestine peace process, and is currently seeking another nation to fulfil that role?

Is this the OIC that has its headquarters in Tehran, the capital of a country that historically encourages its citizens to take to the streets chanting "Death To America" ? (Most recently in 2015 by it's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei ? ).

Is this the OIC that simultaneously decries US recognition of Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel, on the grounds of breaching UN resolutions relating to the "status" of the city, and then declares East Jerusalem as being the capital of the State of Palestine and publicly urged all other nations to follow suite ?

Has the OIC ever actually been involved in any meaningful way in the peace process ANYWAY ? I don't think so.

And yet suddenly they are the arbiters of who may be involved in the peace process ?

Yeah... right.

 

[Giz]

Is this the OIC that has its headquarters in Tehran, the capital of a country that historically encourages its citizens to take to the streets chanting "Death To America" ? (Most recently in 2015 by it's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei ? ).

Is this the OIC that simultaneously decries US recognition of Jerusalem as being the capital of Israel, on the grounds of breaching UN resolutions relating to the "status" of the city, and then declares East Jerusalem as being the capital of the State of Palestine and publicly urged all other nations to follow suite ?

Has the OIC ever actually been involved in any meaningful way in the peace process ANYWAY ? I don't think so.

And yet suddenly they are the arbiters of who may be involved in the peace process ?

Yeah... right.

The opinion of the 57 varieties of dysfunctional failure making up the OIC don't amount to a tin of beans.

It's like polling the Warsaw pact for their opinion on Divided Berlin.

(Edited to update for the prestige's suggestion)

 

[theprestige]

The opinion of the 57 varieties of dysfunctional failure making up the OIC don't amount to a tin of beans.

It's like polling the Warsaw pact for their opinion of Reagan.

For their opinion on Divided Berlin, I think.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The opinion of the 57 varieties of dysfunctional failure making up the OIC don't amount to a tin of beans.

It's like polling the Warsaw pact for their opinion of Reagan.

The opinions of the Warsaw pact does seem to matter. If their opinions were different or changed then that changes the cold war.

 

[Giz]

For their opinion on Divided Berlin, I think.

Yes, that's an apt improvement.