UN watch dog speaks out again'st UN lack of action

[bloodyminded]

Third world lunacy? What about 1st world lunacy?

A perfectly reasonable question, MG.

[Moonlight Graham]

Are you seriously trying to attribute the lack of a WWIII to the UN? It was not cooperation or the UN that prevented WWIII, as you should know, the USA and the USSR hated and feared one another plenty. What prevented such a conflict from ever happening was the existence of nuclear weapons and the deterrent policy of mutual assured destruction.

Well, nuclear deterrents and the bipolarity of the Cold War was most prominent reason in there being no WWIII. However, its impossible to know how the world order would be without the UN.

[Guest American Woman]

....I too could see some legitimate grounds for invading Iraq on condition that it be done under UN command.

I'm not sure I understand that reasoning. If there are legitimate grounds for invading a nation and removing a leader such as Saddam, why would you only approve if the UN approves? The grounds are the same no matter what; with or without UN approval. The result, a strike against Iraq, would be the same whether the UN gave a resolution approving the attack or not. So, if there are legitimate grounds, why would you be ok with doing nothing simply because the UN didn't approve, while you would be ok with it if the UN did approve?

[Moonlight Graham]

Iraq's material breach of existing UN resolutions from the Gulf War were more than enough,

I've heard the argument before. IMO, getting by on a technicality doesn't cut it. Maybe it even was "legal" to invade, that's still doesn't make it legitimate, nor does it represent the will of the UN. It was over a decade since the 1st Gulf War resolutions were passed, any kind of reasonable sense says after that much time the 2003 invasion needed another resolution. There was a reason that the US wanted to get a clear resolution passed in 2003. To clearly legitimize and legalize the invasion.

...but further, the UNSC approved post invasion plans by the UK/USA. The UN continues to support the Iraq government and elections all while the INVADERS remain in country.

If your friend stabs someone in the leg with a knife and you completely disagree with his actions, you're still going to give him the gauze you have and help him clean up the wound instead of letting the person bleed to death.

[Bonam]

Maybe it even was "legal" to invade, that's still doesn't make it legitimate, nor does it represent the will of the UN.

Again, why should we care if something represents the "will of the UN"?

[bush_cheney2004]

....IMO, getting by on a technicality doesn't cut it. Maybe it even was "legal" to invade, that's still doesn't make it legitimate, nor does it represent the will of the UN.

The "will" of the UN is not the only consideration in such matters. That's one reason why I often point to NATO's intervention in Kosovo (1999), which also was not approved by UNSC resolution.

It was over a decade since the 1st Gulf War resolutions were passed, any kind of reasonable sense says after that much time the 2003 invasion needed another resolution. There was a reason that the US wanted to get a clear resolution passed in 2003. To clearly legitimize and legalize the invasion.

The US Congress made such a resolution desireable, but not mandatory. Other PM's agreed to topple Saddam as unfinished business and a chronic problem for the region, particularly after UN inspections ceased. UNSCOM and the IAEA confirmed Iraq's material breach of Gulf War surrender instruments.

If your friend stabs someone in the leg with a knife and you completely disagree with his actions, you're still going to give him the gauze you have and help him clean up the wound instead of letting the person bleed to death.

OK...using your analogy, I guess you are also going to help your friend steal his stereo, wide screen TV, replace his wife and kids, and never call the cops. The UN took no substantive action to condemn or compel the coalition to stop invasion actions or establish a cease fire.

[Moonlight Graham]

Again, why should we care if something represents the "will of the UN"?

Because it is seen as a legitimate action by the international community, and the great powers of the world specifically represented by the UNSC. Hence the concept of "collective security".

The Concert of Europe established in 1814 after the Napoleonic Wars led to 100 years of relative international peace up until WWI compared to the 150 years previous to 1814 starting from the beginning of the modern international system established in 1648, where there was seemingly constant war between states from 1648-1814. Wars between great power states have also been relatively uncommon since the end of WWII and the establishment of the UN compared to the years between 1648-1814 or the 1st half of the 20th Century.

The UN has a decent record at avoiding support for stupid interstate wars ie: Vietnam and 2003 Iraq, Iraq attacks against Iran and Kuwait etc.. If you can find a better system than collective security/concert of power to avoid international war i'm all ears.

[Moonlight Graham]

The "will" of the UN is not the only consideration in such matters. That's one reason why I often point to NATO's intervention in Kosovo (1999), which also was not approved by UNSC resolution.

Honestly i don't know a lot about the Kosovo conflict. Since it's a recent conflict that involved my country it seems i should read up on it.

The UN took no substantive action to condemn or compel the coalition to stop invasion actions or establish a cease fire.

You're probably right, i don't remember them ever doing such. Did the General Assembly ever do any kind of vote on it?

[bush_cheney2004]

...You're probably right, i don't remember them ever doing such. Did the General Assembly ever do any kind of vote on it?

No...there were condemnations from Koffi Annan and diplomatic corps, but nothing materialized for a GA vote. As you indicated, the UN instead became complicit in post invasion governance in the face of Iraq realities, lest it become even more irrelevant.

[Bonam]

Because it is seen as a legitimate action by the international community, and the great powers of the world specifically represented by the UNSC. Hence the concept of "collective security".

Actually much of the world thinks the UN specifically does not represent the will of the "international community" when it comes to security actions because the security council is dominated by the five veto wielding members. So they aren't particularly happy with it.

The Concert of Europe established in 1814 after the Napoleonic Wars led to 100 years of relative international peace up until WWI compared to the 150 years previous to 1814 starting from the beginning of the modern international system established in 1648, where there was seemingly constant war between states from 1648-1814.

Relative peace between 1814 and 1914? What are you talking about? How about all these wars:

* 1830 Ten Days Campaign (following the Belgian Revolt)

* 1830-1831 Polish-Russian war

* 1848-1849 Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence

* 1848-1851 First Schleswig War

* 1848–1866 Italian Independence wars

* 1848–1849 First Italian Independence War

* 1859 Second Italian Independence War

* 1866 Third Italian Independence War

* 1854–1856 Crimean War

* 1864 Second Schleswig War

* 1864 January Uprising

* 1866 Austro-Prussian War

* 1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War

* 1877–1878 Russo–Turkish War

* 1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War

* 1893–1896 Cod War of 1893

* 1897 First Greco–Turkish War

* 1911-1912 Italo-Turkish War

* 1912–1913 Balkan Wars

o 1912-1913 First Balkan War

o 1913 Second Balkan War

That's significantly more conflicts than in the century prior.

Wars between great power states have also been relatively uncommon since the end of WWII and the establishment of the UN compared to the years between 1648-1814 or the 1st half of the 20th Century.

For reasons unrelated to the UN, which I have already mentioned.

The UN has a decent record at avoiding support for stupid interstate wars ie: Vietnam and 2003 Iraq, Iraq attacks against Iran and Kuwait etc..

Why was the Iraq war stupid? We're rid of Saddam Hussein and Iraq is now reaching a relative level of stability. Why was Vietnam stupid? Sure it was badly botched, but simply ceding it to the communists would have been stupider still.

If you can find a better system than collective security/concert of power to avoid international war i'm all ears.

1. Nuclear deterrent and mutual assured destruction between sane states. Here, I define sanity as holding the desire to continue to exist higher than the desire to annihilate one's enemies.

2. Superpower domination and containment of states that cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

This is the system that has worked since WWII and has brought us 65 years of a lack of war between major powers.

That being said, I'm not opposed to the principles of "collective security", but that doesn't necessarily mean the UN. For collective security to work at this point in history, you really only need NATO, Russia, and China on board. In any case, the UN has utterly failed in the realm of providing for collective security by failing to implement sanctions or military intervention in several situations where it was clearly called for by the principles that the UN holds as international law and human rights. Several genocides in Africa come to mind. This kind of lack of consistency in the application of the principles of collective security undermines the entire scheme and lets potentially belligerent nations know that they have a good chance of acting as they wish without suffering either sanctions or military intervention.

As such, the UN simply is not serving the function you ascribe to it. The UN is not keeping the world at peace. Conflicts happen, the UN issues toothless condemnations, and the wars continue.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

I'm not sure I understand that reasoning. If there are legitimate grounds for invading a nation and removing a leader such as Saddam, why would you only approve if the UN approves? The grounds are the same no matter what; with or without UN approval. The result, a strike against Iraq, would be the same whether the UN gave a resolution approving the attack or not. So, if there are legitimate grounds, why would you be ok with doing nothing simply because the UN didn't approve, while you would be ok with it if the UN did approve?

I couldn't agree more.

[bloodyminded]

Honestly i don't know a lot about the Kosovo conflict. Since it's a recent conflict that involved my country it seems i should read up on it.

It's a good idea, because it's actually quite controversial, if we don't restrict our reading to government statements. (And even those betray some conflicting confusion...see NATO Commnader Wesley Clarke's remarks about how the bombing was expected to worsen, not decrease, the risk of massacre.) In my view, the reason it seems to be so wholheartedly accepted as "just"--humanitarian, even--is because it was the great "liberal" war, under Clinton, Blair, Chretien, et al. This mildly interesting point is, of course, wholly irrelevant.....

[bloodyminded]

Why was the Iraq war stupid? We're rid of Saddam Hussein and Iraq is now reaching a relative level of stability. Why was Vietnam stupid?

Yeah..."relative" to the instability of a couple of years earlier as precipitated by the war itself. It remains one of the most dangerous places on Earth.

Hell, if Afghanistan ever turns itself around, we'll credit the Soviets for the "relative stability."

Sure it was badly botched, but simply ceding it to the communists would have been stupider still.

It wasn't "badly botched"; it was a war of aggression. The enemy wasn't only the communists; the enemy was also the terrible threat of independent nationalism, which is unacceptable.

That being said, I'm not opposed to the principles of "collective security", but that doesn't necessarily mean the UN. For collective security to work at this point in history, you really only need NATO, Russia, and China on board. In any case, the UN has utterly failed in the realm of providing for collective security by failing to implement sanctions or military intervention in several situations where it was clearly called for by the principles that the UN holds as international law and human rights. Several genocides in Africa come to mind. This kind of lack of consistency in the application of the principles of collective security undermines the entire scheme and lets potentially belligerent nations know that they have a good chance of acting as they wish without suffering either sanctions or military intervention.

As such, the UN simply is not serving the function you ascribe to it. The UN is not keeping the world at peace. Conflicts happen, the UN issues toothless condemnations, and the wars continue.

There's a lot of truth to this, but I get the impression that you place the blame squarely on the usual suspects: the developing and underdeveloped nations, who continue to be at odds with the noble humanitarian keepers of wisdom...who by massive coincidence, happen to be the globe's most powerful states. (Evidently, you don't get power and wealth by taking it; rather, it is a gift from God to reward one's benevolence and good deeds.)

But the fact is, the UN's many failures are the fault of member states, definitely including the rich and powerful states. In fact, them most of all.

So without the UN, why in the world would we think the powerful, wealthy states are suddenly going to modify their behaviour, and perform more admirably than they do now?

Edited July 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Moonlight Graham]

Relative peace between 1814 and 1914? What are you talking about? How about all these wars:

* 1830 Ten Days Campaign (following the Belgian Revolt)

* 1830-1831 Polish-Russian war

* 1848-1849 Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence

* 1848-1851 First Schleswig War

* 1848–1866 Italian Independence wars

* 1848–1849 First Italian Independence War

* 1859 Second Italian Independence War

* 1866 Third Italian Independence War

* 1854–1856 Crimean War

* 1864 Second Schleswig War

* 1864 January Uprising

* 1866 Austro-Prussian War

* 1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War

* 1877–1878 Russo–Turkish War

* 1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War

* 1893–1896 Cod War of 1893

* 1897 First Greco–Turkish War

* 1911-1912 Italo-Turkish War

* 1912–1913 Balkan Wars

o 1912-1913 First Balkan War

o 1913 Second Balkan War

That's significantly more conflicts than in the century prior.

Absolutely not. Both the 18th and 19th centuries were riddled with war. I will edit my statement by saying that "world wars", aka large-scale wars involving the majority of the great powers, occurred alarmingly frequent from post-1648 until the establishment of collective security by the great powers in the Treaty of Vienna of 1815. 3 major "world wars" occurred in the 18th century: War of the Spanish Succession, War of the Austrian Succession, and the Seven Years' War. Add to that the 6 separate "Wars of the Coalitions" that occurred during then French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars from 1792-1815.

How many "world wars" occurred in the 100 years between 1815-1914? History says almost undeniably zero. How many even involved more than 2 or 3 great powers? This is what i meant by "relatively peaceful" from 1815-1914. Similarly, when the collective security system broke down between 1914-1945 we saw more world war.

However, i will totally agree that nuclear weapons and the bipolarity of the Cold War have been the primary reasons for the lack of a world war since 1945. However, collective security has also played a major role. Collective security between great powers is based on the concept that that an attack on 1 great power constitutes an attack on them all. France would not attack Britain now because it knows that if it did, the rest of the great powers would act to defend Britain in order to re-establish global peace/security/stability. Yes of course nukes play into this in a major way as well.

Why was the Iraq war stupid? We're rid of Saddam Hussein and Iraq is now reaching a relative level of stability. Why was Vietnam stupid? Sure it was badly botched, but simply ceding it to the communists would have been stupider still.

I suppose this is a matter of opinion and a can of worms we won't bother opening lol.

That being said, I'm not opposed to the principles of "collective security", but that doesn't necessarily mean the UN. For collective security to work at this point in history, you really only need NATO, Russia, and China on board.

Pretty much. But this is essentially the UNSC though. I'm not saying the UNSC is perfect, in fact could do for reform as many others have argued.

In any case, the UN has utterly failed in the realm of providing for collective security by failing to implement sanctions or military intervention in several situations where it was clearly called for by the principles that the UN holds as international law and human rights. Several genocides in Africa come to mind. This kind of lack of consistency in the application of the principles of collective security undermines the entire scheme and lets potentially belligerent nations know that they have a good chance of acting as they wish without suffering either sanctions or military intervention.

Collective security has worked for the 5 powers who have the veto. And i agree that the UN has failed in many respects to uphold its basic principles as outlined in the UN Charter. However, it is important to note that Westphalian system of the international sovereignty states still remains and is the reason for some of the UN's failures. Humanitarian intervention, such as was needed in Rwanda and Sudan, breaks this rule of sovereignty ie: what happens inside a country is its own business and no other state has the right to interfere. You yourself are a proponent of this from previous statements, so it is hard for you to complain about Rwanda/Darfur etc.

I think the whole problem with the UN Charter is that its overly idealistic. You can't have the sovereign equality of all states and also enforce "basic human rights" for people inside all states at the same time. That's the whole dichotomy of the UN, and its impossible to uphold the Charter without changing the whole rules of the game or having a world gov't.

As such, the UN simply is not serving the function you ascribe to it. The UN is not keeping the world at peace. Conflicts happen, the UN issues toothless condemnations, and the wars continue.

I've never said the UN was perfect. I'm not its #1 fan. It needs major reform. The failures to address what has happened in Africa the last 20 years is proof. Many of the continued polices of the IMF and World Bank have been damaging to developing countries. But i would rather have it than not have it.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Aleksandar Maksimovic]

I won't write about how bad it is or how good something else is.

But think about it this way, history repeats itself.

WW1

1-League of nations

WW2

2-United nations

???

3-???

[jbg]

UN watch dog accuses the UN council of not doing it's job, having double standards towards some nations. Is this another sign of the UN beoming irrelevant, or to politcalized for it's own good....

I am totally oposed to the continued existence of the U.N. The one or two worthwhile agencies could survive without the help of the "Palace on the East River".

THe U.N. is a huge, unaccountable beaurocracy. The U.N. is not a government. It has no particular goals or agenda to accomplish. It is basically a group of assemblies and counsels that think about problems, and pass resolutions. No one gives or is likely to give these resolutions much credence as no one looks to the U.N. as moral authority.

Even worse, the U.N. acts as a filter that divorces the source of the money from the recipients. Thus the aid recipients get the money with few or no strings attached. The money can as easily go to a dictator's Swiss bank account aas to the benefit of flood sufferers in Pakistan.

The U.N. may reduced state vs. state wars such as WW I and WW II. In their place have arisen wars fought by irregulars such as various "liberation organizations" and cults such as Al Quaeda. The U.N. can do nothing to make people like each other though.

Basically it's a useless, wasteful money pit.

[Army Guy]

Dre:

Canada has been a fairly active participant in UN missions from 1947 right up to now. Heres a few of them...

Very impressive list, a while true Canada has racked up a very impressive record of "UN misions" from 1947 until approx 1995 and for good reason, the entire peace keeping concept was a Canadian invention, and we should have been in the lead, it was our concept...but like everything it dies, or losses it's ability to control waring factions....this came to a head well before 1995 , but when the UN first deployed to the former Yugo, this conflict really showed the world how much the UN had become irrelvent in it's abilites to control any conflict or situation...

Your list gets some what shorter when you take out the deployments that are not UN related, deployments of our Dart team for example are not UN driven, but rather our countries direct contribution to a diaster or similar event. These missions are under direct control by Ottawa and NDHQ, not the UN.

Nato lead missions, are also not under UN control, but rather under NATO's command and Ottawa's. While they may be blessed by the UN or even authorized by the UN the UN does not control that mission...

Infact it is the entire reason NATO started taking over these missions, the UN peace keeping force was no longer effective, to many rules, to many restrictions it was in fact high ranking civilians controling military type operations..an accident waiting to happen, and that happen in Yugo when that mission turned into a train wreck very quickly.

International missions, are also not UN type missions, these missions are Ottawa deciding to deploy troops on it's own political purposes...

So once you subtract all the above missions, what is left...how many troops has Canada deployed on UN missions, since 1995 or the last 15 years is approx 5671 soldiers, thats works out on average 378 pers a year. it seems our priorities are else where...

For a nation that are suppose to be strong supporters of the UN, the numbers really tell another story...that story tells an even bigger tale if you compare the number of troops deployed on NATO lead missions...And for the nation that invented the peace keeping concept it must also say something about how the UN is regarded in Ottawa...

You use the example of the Iraqi invasion to make your piont, when really having NO UN justifaction was not the real reason we did not deploy...i think other factors over shadowed the UN excuse....Our armed forces where not equiped for high intensity warfare, even with a third world country, and our forces would have been more of a hinderence than an asset...stack all that on top of our low numbers of combat soldiers, cost of new or replacement equipment lost in battle, or what was needed to upgrade before deploying...that and the Afghan commitment was looking better and cheaper every day....not to mention the liberals knew high cas in this war would sink them in the polls....No the UN may of been the excuse but the real reason was far for it..