What happens to the U.N?

[Bearguin]

John. While I am ashamed at the information in the link you provided, it is mostly about the state of affairs with our millitary.

I'm more intrigued by a couple of headlines (for some reason the links are'nt working for me) on the globe and mail home page.

Canada brokering new deal - why does this stink of just another Chretian attempt at a legacy as opposed to realy dealing with the issues at hand.

Defence Minister signs off on combat role in Iraq - So, despite the official gov't position, we can still send combat troops in. Wierd.

I just wish Chretian would come out and say one way or the other what we are going to do.

Anyway, if anyone want to read the articles, go to www.globeandmail.com. Sorry but I can't seem to get the links working right now.

 

[Thumper]

The United Nations has as its greatest purpose a commitment to the free expression of complaints and ideals from all countries in its organization. The General Assembly is a place for countries to come together to work out their transnational and international problems.

The Security Council was envisioned by FDR as a way for the great nations to keep the peace in the rest of the world. (Actually, FDR only wanted it to deal with Europe, but that idea got thrown by the wayside quickly.) One thing about going through the UNSC, however, it does force a country to re-examine its reasons for going to war.

One of the biggest problems here is that three of the top four nations selling things to Iraq hold veto power in the UNSC (France, Russia, China).

Another problem is that the US is looking at a post-war Iraq as being solely their responsibility. If the US were to allow other nations to be the nation-builders, I am very sure they would sign on to a war, or at least they would be more amenable to a war resolution. Let Russia and France be intimately involved in re-creating Iraq after the war. It would go a long way to show everyone that the US is not merely trying to extend its already extensive hegemony in the region.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Kodiak]

Invade without resolution? What do you call 1441?

1441 only promises "immediate consequences", or something along that line. A resolution specifying military force is preferable.

 

[John Bryce]

I just wish Chretian would come out and say one way or the other what we are going to do.

So do I, but he won't. As MacKenzie says:

The present government has abdicated its foreign policy to the UN over the past 10 years and is continuing to do so. We are hiding behind the UN's skirts.

While the UN has little:

...credibility as either a peacemaker or a peacekeeper...

 

[Jocko]

One of the biggest problems here is that three of the top four nations selling things to Iraq hold veto power in the UNSC (France, Russia, China).

Agreed. If this were a legal proceeding, this would constitute a conflict of interest and the participant would recuse (i.e., abstain) from the proceedings.

 

[Tmy]

Why should they have veto power anyway. How fair is that.

 

[Bearguin]

No one country should have veto power. It should take at least two to Veto. Although I'm not sure I agree with the veto concept at all, having one country able to control the outcome is stupid.

 

[Segnosaur]

Another problem is that the US is looking at a post-war Iraq as being solely their responsibility. If the US were to allow other nations to be the nation-builders, I am very sure they would sign on to a war, or at least they would be more amenable to a war resolution.

I don't recall seeing anything where the U.S. has said that other nations can't be involved in nation building. They may have said that, but I haven't seen anything. However, some countries may avoid helping just to spite the U.S. I remember seeing an article (sorry, I don't have a link to it...) where the head of some sort of European EEC aid organizaiton said that they would provide aid, but not if the U.S. goes in alone. (The heck with helping the poor people, if the U.S. invades alone we'll let them suffer!)

Question: are you suggesting the U.S. totally pull out of Iraq afterwards and let other nations take over? (If they did that, I'm sure the anti-war people would shout "See, the U.S. isn't interested in rebuilding Iraq".)

 

[ssibal]

1441 only promises "immediate consequences", or something along that line. A resolution specifying military force is preferable.

It says:

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

I would consider military action to be a serious consequence.

 

[aerocontrols]

Serious Consequences:

The US 1st Circuit Court says:

It also noted that "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." Id. In diplomatic parlance, the phrase "serious consequences" generally refers to military action.

MattJ

 

[Doctor X]

I rather thought that is what it meant way back then. . .

. . . silly me for taking the UNSC seriously.

--J.D.

 

[John Bryce]

I am not sure I agree with the folowing, but I thought I would throw it in for discussion:

Some scenarios for the aftermath of a US-led invasion of Iraq

Scenario 2: "Business as Usual"
A short war takes place with minimal disruption

Without UN support, the US invades Iraq; fighting and destruction is minimal; Saddam goes, and the US occupies Iraq. A puppet government is set up, the oil flows and prices drop, and everyone returns to business as usual. However, resentment of Western power grows in the Islamic world, and radical terrorism grows with it. Terrorist attacks become commonplace but are comparatively ineffective due to increased powers of suppression. The principle of collective security is weakened, as is the UN, and international relations generally become more strained. Cooperation to face global problems in regard to health, climate change, development, and so on, is limited. The rich countries become ever more militarised and security conscious, and this acts as a major tax on economic growth.

Scenario 3: "Skin of our Teeth"
A messy war occurs but the repercussions are contained

The US invades without UN support; its high-tech weaponry does not work as well as was hoped; the Iraqis strongly resist (including messy house-to-house fighting); Saddam burns oil wells and deploys some WMD against the invaders. The US wins albeit with thousands of casualties, and many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and injured. The US sets up a puppet government. Resistance within Iraq is sustained and a sizeable occupation force must be maintained to suppress it. The whole region becomes destabilised and the US is drawn into a series of brush wars. The US becomes increasingly militarised and nationally chauvinistic, souring relations with other countries. European integration gains pace, with an eye to challenging rampant US power. The US economy weakens severely, adding to global instability.

Scenario 4: "◊◊◊◊ Happens"
A messy war unfolds and a new international arms race begins

As above, the invasion and aftermath do not go well. The US leadership becomes increasingly belligerent as it responds to growing international criticism. The UN is completely sidelined. A solidifying Europe (led by France and Germany) and Russia begin to rearm as they perceive the US as presenting a growing danger. The global economy suffers as international tension undermines trade and the financial markets. China, having caught up in the technology race and operating in quasi-alliance with the Europeans and Russians, overtly challenges US dominance. Meanwhile, the emergence of new diseases and the effects of climate change wreak havoc in the developing world and begin to affect the West.

 

[dsm]

How can you NOT agree? The article covers the whole gambit of possibilities for what will happen, so there must be one of the scenarios that you (basically) agree with as being the most likely.

Do I hear a poll?

 

[dsm]

So, if the US and whatever allies invade Iraq without a UN resolution, what will this do to the future of the UN?

Maybe the better question is what will it do to the future of the US?

 

[John Bryce]

How can you NOT agree? The article covers the whole gambit of possibilities for what will happen, so there must be one of the scenarios that you (basically) agree with as being the most likely.

Okay, I mostly agree with #2. No, I change my mind...

Oh, damn. I can't decide. May I take parts from each one and make my own?

 

[John Bryce]

Alright. Number three I basically agree with. There. I decided.

 

[Segnosaur]

How can you NOT agree? The article covers the whole gambit of possibilities for what will happen, so there must be one of the scenarios that you (basically) agree with as being the most likely.

Do I hear a poll?

No, it doesn't cover all the possibilities. In fact, I don't think any of them are really reasonable.

Frankly, this list of scenarios looks like some frustrated anti-war activist trying to ignore the evidence and come up with fantasy scenarios to make the coalition look bad.

Look at his scenarios:
#1 (Not posted above) - Assumes Saddam allows full inspections. We have 12 years experience to know he won't cooperate. Has a catch 22... Iraq only let in the inspectors because of the threat from the U.S. (Blix admitted that), yet the scenario described seems to ignore the importance of the U.S. in forcing that.

#2 - Short war (which makes sense) followed by a puppet government - Assumes that the U.S. would actually do that. (With all the world's attention, the U.S. wouldn't dare do that... Democracy is the most likely scenario). It also assumes Arabs will resent the invasion; however, Iraqis want the invasion, and the rest of the arab world will either: #1 want the same (since other arab countries are oppresed themselves), or #2 now have reason to respect the Americans, as they will show they follow through when force is necessary

#3 - Yes, things could get messy. But the vast majority of Iraqis want Saddam gone, so urban warefare will not be an issue. (Yes, Saddam can destroy oil wells. But I doubt Americans will be to blame for that.) Again, it assumes a puppet governemt (not likely). Europe integration? Remember, most European countries are siding with the U.S. in this conflict.

#4 - Messy war, with arms race - Again, it assumes the Europeans will somehow integrate. Not likely. As for European countries and Russia seeing the U.S. as a 'danger'. I really don't think people believe that. (People are smart enough to know that the U.S. really isn't interested in invading France or Germany, and I doubt they could really muster the will to build up their armed forces just to take on the U.S. which isn't really threatening them...) And where the heck did this 'disease' thing come from? and why is it only in this scenario? Does that mean there will be no widespread diseases in any of the other scenarios?

#5 - Iraqi war goes really badly - Chance of happening: about 0.1%. (How many Iraqis have surrendered even before the war starts?) The only sides in this that have nukes now are the western powers and Israel, and its not likely they would use them, even if Iraq did use chem weapons. As for new bio weapons... People can build chem/bio weapons fairly easily, but I doubt much of the middle east has the technical knowhow to develop NEW stuff.

Here's my scenario:
- US and a coalition invade Iraq. Victory is fairly quick. (Surveys show most Iraqis want Saddam gone, and the army is likely to surrender quick.) Saddam unleashes chem weapons and blows up oil wells, but strangely enough, its Saddam that gets the blame. When the U.S. gets in there, they start uncovering the true horrors of what has happened in Iraq (their complete weapons programs, mass killings, etc.). Anti-war activists slink away.
- U.S. sets up a temporary government but starts moving to democracy. (May be slow, but it will happen, because the U.S. knows that if they don't, they'll look bad to the world.) People have more freedom, sanctions are lifted
- Temporary increase in terrorism, but it dies down quickly. Governments in the area realize the U.S. is willing to stand up to rogue nations. (Remember, for many years, there have been constant terrorist attacks WITHOUT American having major interventions in the middle east. But I believe the Arabic people will respect strength more than weakness.)
- People in countries neighbouring Iraq see the increase in freedom, and start pushing for more freedom in their own countries. Iran is probably the next major nation to turn democratic. (Iran has a large population of young people who are not fond of Islamic militancy). Having more democracies in the area further decreases terrorism.

My scenario makes a heck of a lot more sense. And its based on real facts (like the survey that shows support of Iraqis wanting Saddam overthrown).

 

[dsm]

Here's my scenario:
- US and a coalition invade Iraq. Victory is fairly quick. (Surveys show most Iraqis want Saddam gone, and the army is likely to surrender quick.) Saddam unleashes chem weapons and blows up oil wells, but strangely enough, its Saddam that gets the blame. When the U.S. gets in there, they start uncovering the true horrors of what has happened in Iraq (their complete weapons programs, mass killings, etc.). Anti-war activists slink away.
- U.S. sets up a temporary government but starts moving to democracy. (May be slow, but it will happen, because the U.S. knows that if they don't, they'll look bad to the world.) People have more freedom, sanctions are lifted
- Temporary increase in terrorism, but it dies down quickly. Governments in the area realize the U.S. is willing to stand up to rogue nations. (Remember, for many years, there have been constant terrorist attacks WITHOUT American having major interventions in the middle east. But I believe the Arabic people will respect strength more than weakness.)
- People in countries neighbouring Iraq see the increase in freedom, and start pushing for more freedom in their own countries. Iran is probably the next major nation to turn democratic. (Iran has a large population of young people who are not fond of Islamic militancy). Having more democracies in the area further decreases terrorism.

My scenario makes a heck of a lot more sense. And its based on real facts (like the survey that shows support of Iraqis wanting Saddam overthrown).

This is basically the #2 scenario and, if you thought about it, you'd see that the differences are not that great.

Questions -- in your scenario:

• What survey are you basing this on?
• How much of a "coalition" are you talking about?
• What will the al Quaida do?
• What will the Iranian government do?
• What will the Saudi government do?
• What will Turkey do?
• What will the (radical) Palestinians do?
• What will the US do? (How long is "temporary"?)
• How will the Kurds react to the above?
• Will North Korea "distract" the US at critical times for the Middle Eastern region?
• How will the "snubbed" UN nations react to the above?
• What makes you think that having a presense in the Middle East will have any bigger effect on terrorism than Israel has had?
• If Saddam destroys the oil wells, why won't the US get (much of) the blame because of starting the war?

There's a lot of variables that your scenario hasn't yet addressed.

 

[Segnosaur]

This is basically the #2 scenario and, if you thought about it, you'd see that the differences are not that great.

Actually, I think the differences are very great. The main differences are that Iraq will NOT have a puppet government, and that there will be no long term increase in terrorism. A democratic Iraq can be a good example to other middle east nations to show that the U.S. can actually act to their betterment.

This is basically the #2 scenario and, if you thought about it, you'd see that the differences are not that great.

Questions -- in your scenario:

• What survey are you basing this on?
• How much of a "coalition" are you talking about?
• What will the al Quaida do?
• What will the Iranian government do?
• What will the Saudi government do?
• What will Turkey do?
• What will the (radical) Palestinians do?
• What will the US do? (How long is "temporary"?)
• How will the Kurds react to the above?
• Will North Korea "distract" the US at critical times for the Middle Eastern region?
• How will the "snubbed" UN nations react to the above?
• What makes you think that having a presense in the Middle East will have any bigger effect on terrorism than Israel has had?
• If Saddam destroys the oil wells, why won't the US get (much of) the blame because of starting the war?

There's a lot of variables that your scenario hasn't yet addressed.

• The survey was run by a think tank in Belgium, and published in newspapers in December. I can dig up the link if you'd like. Basically, it said that although people don't want war, they wan't saddam even less, and would support an invasion, as long as the west was willing to reguild.
• The "coalition" is the U.S., U.K., Australia, Spain, Italy, etc. (Obvioiusly the U.S. and U.K. are the main members, but Australia will be helpful too)?
• al Quaida will do what they want to do. They may make a lot of noise, bin Laden may release another tape from the grave. There may even be another terrorist attack (or attempt). But, there would have been one sooner or later anyways. If they decide to move ahead just because of the Iraq war, there is a better chance of them slipping up
• Iran may complain, but I doubt they will act. The leaders don't like Saddam, and the people really want democracy.
• Saudi will probably allow the U.S. to use their territory to launch attacks from. Some ratical elements in S.A. may complain (and some may even join terrorist groups). But in the long term, having a democratic Iraq on their doorstep will make S.A. a little calmer
• Turkey may allow attacks from its territory or it may not. The U.S. can accomplish its mission without using Turkish territory.
• Palestinians may support Iraq, but if they get actively involved against the military action, they will loose support in the world. (As long as they attack only Israel, people will let them do whatever they want.) Of course, in the long term, removal of Saddam will remove one source of funding for Palistinian terrorists
• What will the US do? (How long is "temporary"?) How long did it take for Japan? I don't know.
• Not sure how the Kurds will react. They will likely be glad Saddam is gone, but they may push for an actual Kurdish state. It may get messy, but they will be better off
• North Korea probably won't be able to "distract" the US because the war will be relatively short. Plus, the way that NK should be handled is different than the way Iraq should be handled
• How "snubbed" UN nations act is irrelevant. France made them that way. The damage is already done. Perhaps it will be a lesson that the U.N. can't work the way it is set up.
• A democratic and allied Iraq will have more impact because it will be an islamic democracy, something missing in the world. It will be harder for the people of other middle east countries to dismiss them because of a different religion
• I think people are smart enough to realize that it was Saddam that set off the explosives to destroy the oil wells. People will realize it as a last-gasp of a tyrant. Why SHOULD people blame the U.S.? Did they get blamed when Saddam blew up Kuwaits oil fields?

 

[armageddonman]

So, if the US and whatever allies invade Iraq without a UN resolution, what will this do to the future of the UN?

Not really much. The US and other Nations have invaded other countries without UN backing in the past and nothing happened to the UN.