Straw welcomes UN plan for strikes on rogue states

[Tinoire]

Straw welcomes UN plan for strikes on rogue states

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
06 December 2004


Changes to the UN charter would make it easier for Britain and the US to go to war with Security Council backing against rogue states, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, says.

In an interview in The Independent today - his first newspaper interview since Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, announced a planned shake-up of the UN - Mr Straw says Britain and the US could have gone to war on Iraq under the new UN rules, over Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses against his own people, including the Marsh Arabs.

Under the proposed changes, in a report by 16 experts, the UN's 15-member Security Council would be enlarged to 24 nations, and the UN stance on emerging threats would be tightened, because the world had a "responsibility to protect" people threatened with genocide, mass killings or ethnic cleansing.

Mr Straw said the proposed charter would prevent other members of the enlarged Security Council using the veto to block preventive action to protect people from genocide.

(snip)

The Foreign Secretary emphasised his belief that the threat of preventive action by the UN would in future force dictators and rogue states to bow to international pressure. But his remarks will alarm critics of the war, and raise fears that the changes would open the way to action by the US against other states, such as Syria and Iran, the latter identified by George Bush as part of an axis of evil.

Mr Straw firmly denies that he misled the UN over the case for war in Iraq, winning praise from Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, for his presentation. "I worked extremely hard to find a peaceful solution," Mr Straw says.

(snip)

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=590104

[IllegalCombatant]

1. they didn't even need the UN last time

how the fuck can it get any easier than that? :crazy:

[acmavm]

2. Somehow I can see big trouble coming with a UN charter change like

this. Everyone will be able to justify a military action against anyone just be saying that they're attacking a rogue nation.

I don't like this one bit.

As for Jack Straw and his search for a peaceful solution, right dude. You did everything you could to lie your country into a war

[CHIMO]

8. It's Being Put On The Table

I wouldn't despair. There is a feeling the the veto does not represent the world as it is now. My take is that things are being put on the table. The other countries do not feel that the veto represents present day politics. Who do you think is going to give up their veto?
So to dilute this power one would increase the number of members on the security council.
The next step would be that anyone that has nuclear, first strike capability will have a veto. If we don't want the multiplication of nuclear weapons then the veto has to be withdrawn.

This is a proposal that lays it on the table. OK. What is it that you want!

I would look upon the proposal as an opportunity for the nations of the world to stand up for their interests.

Edit: Spelling and grammar

[Erika]

When are they going to strike Israel

for that country's failure to abide by U.N. Resolutions?

[Dem2theMax]

3. Ooops. They left out a line.

~snip~ because the world had a "responsibility to protect" people threatened with genocide, mass killings or ethnic cleansing.

Missing line:
But ONLY when we can make a profit out of doing so.

I seem to remember some countries who recently have had such problems, and no one has come to their rescue. Wonder why?

Can I :puke: now?

[whistle]

4. Didn't Hitler do something like this with the League of Nations

...where he just ingnored their rules just like Bush has done with the UN.

<snip>

The League had many responsibilities and for the years between the First and Second World Wars and many crises tested the Covenant and the member states with both successful outcomes and failures. The collective security principle of the League was tested on more than thirty occasions, with successful outcomes, in the first decade of its existence. A prime example of the League successfully dealing with a test to collective peace is the 1925 invasion of Bulgaria by Greece. When Bulgaria petition the League a cease-fire was called for and upheld whilst League observers ensured the situation was being rectified and a settlement was obtained without full outbreak of war. In the 1930s, however, the League did not stand up to expansionist acts of aggression by the larger powers. In September 1931 Japan invaded the Chinese region of Manchuria. The League council initially hesitated in its reaction as Japan had legitimate reasons to attack - protecting Japanese rail interests threatened by Chinese nationalists. It seems that America and Britain were hesitant in further antagonising the Japanese and this led to their reluctance to act. The only nation seemingly appalled by the actions was the Russians who were too concerned over their domestic affairs to act accordingly. However, action was taken when the Chinese asked the council to intervene. The Japanese attempted to veto any action and the Chinese appealed claiming that Japan could not veto actions it was directly involved with. The League finally set the Lytton Commission to investigate the situation; its report finally being released seven months after the crisis was over. The commission castigated the Japanese for its actions and in 1933 the Japanese withdrew from the League of Nations altogether. Another failure in which the League betrayed its principles was in the invasion of Abyssinia - known today as Ethiopia - by Mussolini's Italy in October 1935. The League acted within four days as Italy had breached the Covenant and was using Mustard Gas illegally. Economic Sanctions were called for and although effective to an extent - some countries did not comply. Albania, Hungary, and Austria would not comply due to economic dependence on trade to and from Italy. Russia was eager to comply however, trade between Russia and Italy was limited and sanctions between the two were limited. Sanctions in general were effective, Italy struggled, gold reserves fell and the Lira had to be devalued and foreign trade dropped to only a fraction of its normal. The main flaw with the League's action, however, was the inability of the League to blockade the main supply routes for the Italians - i.e. the Suez Canal or major Italian ports. The failure to impose military action came from the major powers fearing action against Mussolini would push him towards a Rome-Berlin Axis with an increasingly more aggressive Adolph Hitler. Moreover, it was Hitler's rise to power in Germany and the remilitarization of the Rhineland that proved to be the major downfall of the League. By 1939 Germany had remilitarized and joined in Anchluss with Austria and had begun expanding throughout Europe.

<link> http://www.ixyl.co.uk/poli/league_of_nations

[Union Thug]

5. Ugggg.. that's a hard pill to swallow...

I can't help but wonder what the hell has happened to this country and, now it seems, the world, since I graduated from high school in '82.

It seems like any progress we've made to escape the trappings or our reptilian impulses has been thrown out and pushed aside to make room for a greedier, nastier world.

Look out! We're traveling back in time to revisit gilded age ethics.

I'm really disheartented.

"when id it fall apart?
Some time in the 80's, when the great and the good gave way
to the greedy and the mean..."

:-|

[daleo]

6. The article has insufficient detail to be sure, but...

I presume that the 24 member Security Council would still have to vote some kind of majority before military action could take place. In most cases, that wouldn't necessarily prove to be easy. Remember that U.S./U.K. couldn't even risk a vote of the current Security Council before going to war, leaving aside the issue of the veto of France or Russia.

[jwnparadise]

7. Not really a change

Chapter 7 Article 39 of the UN Charter states:

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Article 41 deals with economic sanctions and 42 deals with military effort.

Certainly Israel/Palestinian and the Kurds gassing would warrant action?

If the UN would deal with places like IRAQ and ISRAEL then BUSH couldn't abuse his power. When the UN doesn't act Bush gets all 3 of his brain cells working!

If you look at the recent missions and count the ones the UN skipped all together(Rwanda), your talking about a couple of million dead before the UN did anything.

These changes IMO will just make the UN less affective.

[oblivious]

9. "Straw firmly denies that he misled the UN over the case for war in Iraq"

Mr Straw firmly denies that he misled the UN over the case for war in Iraq, winning praise from Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, for his presentation. "I worked extremely hard to find a peaceful solution," Mr Straw says.

The man is a liar. He dishonours himself, his family and his government.

He presented suspicion as fact.

He presented a student's master's thesis about Iraq's situation before the Gulf War as Iraq's situation in 2002.

Straw and Powell, birds of a feather. The world mocks you. Your countrymen must hang their head in shame that you represent them.

[SomthingsGotaGive]

10. the same Tinoire that had the Rachel Corry avatar?

If so I'm really glad to see you back. I missed your posts.

[jmatthan]

11. USA and UK - No. 1 Rogue States!!

eom

[ckramer]

16. Maybe UN should really think about moving out of US

[burrowowl]

12. Oh Sh*t! I thought

on seeing the headline that maybe the UN could strike the U$ and capture Bu$h and Company.
One can dream, can't one? :shrug:

[neweurope]

13. World War III is in the making...

... and we're all going to die... Who would have thought that the apocalyptic riders would turn out to be cowboys?

It's getting very dark. I'm freezing.

[Englander]

14. "Jack Straw-the Fuckwit's Fuckwit"

So little time,so much re-writing of history...

[ckramer]

15. Let freedom roll!

WTF

Four more wars!

[neweurope]

17. Unfortunately nobody is going to survive even one!