US forced to rewrite Security Council resolution on Iraq government

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030813/pl_afp/un_us_iraq&cid=1521&ncid=1478

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council will vote Thursday on a US resolution that acknowledges but does not formally recognize Iraq's interim administration, diplomats said.

The original US draft put to the other four permanent members of the council for consultation had proposed saying that United Nations members "endorse" the Governing Council of Iraq set up by the United States and Britain.

But some diplomats said this gave too much legitimacy to the Baghdad administration and according to a copy of a new draft obtained by AFP, the Security Council will only say that it "welcomes" the new administration.

John Negroponte, the US ambassador to the United Nations, accepted the change during consultations Wednesday and requested a vote, the sources said.

"To say 'endorse' would not have been passed," said one senior representative from a member country of the UN Security Council.

more

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. It's sad to see the impotence of the UN

It's sad to see the impotence of the UN. This is the best it can do? Wasn't the UN formed precisely to stop things like our invasion and occupation of Iraq from happening?

[DBoon]

2. League of Nations

There was a similar organization set up after WWI, called the League of Nations.

It was revealed as entirely ineffective when it was unable to do anything about Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia.

Strange parallel?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

3. You don't seem to understand what the UN actually is...

The UN can not do anything. All it can do is mandate that its member nations do something, but in the case of military action, this must come from the Security Council. When the allies set up the UN at the end of WWII they made sure that only if they agreed could something happen. Thus the permanent members have veto power.

In other words, the UN can only force the US to do something if the US agrees, and that is not exactly forcing it is it?

Don't blame the UN for it following the rules it was created under. To ignore those rules would be the same as the US ignoring them and thus be no more legitimate.

If the US wants to continue the lie that the UN is irrelevant, perhaps it should campaign for the UN rules to be changed to allow it to be more democratic and thus not suceptible to the whims of the 5 permanent members of the SC (The US, Russia, France, UK and China).

Remember, what drove Bush wild was the knowledge that both France and Russia said they would veto a UN resolution calling for war against Iraq. At that stage he had the numbers to win a straight vote of the SC members, but the veto would have shot down his resolution. This may have in fact been the first time a veto was used AGAINST US interests, but it certainly wouldn't have been the first time it had been used.

The US liked the UN just fine as long as it was being used by the US to force other nations to do things, but the moment it was used to stop the US from doing something, it suddenly became irrelevant. Go figure...

Anyway, the point is that the UN itself can't do anything. Any actual action has to come from its member nations, and it can only happen with the approval of the 5 permanent members of the SC. Thus the UN can never FORCE the US to do or NOT DO anything as the US has to agree to that action.

Besides, what did you want the UN to do? Declare war on the US?

[htuttle]

4. Yes and no

What you say is true, but as I understand the UN Charter, if someone writes a resolution that specifically names the United States, the United States would have to recuse itself from that vote.

Well, then Britain would veto.

So if there were a resolution that named the US and Britain....

Declare war on the US? No. They won't do that.

Some other sort of sanction? Even a non-punitive, 'symbolic' resolution would be a step toward retaining the legitimacy of the UN.

Think about it from a small country's point of view. After Iraq cooperated with the letter of the resolution (...they were never deemed to be officially in breech to the point of punitive military action...that's just something Bush said), that still didn't prevent the US from violating the UN charter and invading it anyway. If Bush's violation of the charter goes completely unpunished, the entire world is right back to 100% gunboat diplomacy. Why should any country cooperate with the UN anymore if it's no help preventing or rolling back an illegal invasion? The situation in India and Pakistan make you nervous? That's going to be only the beginning of the problems.

Some kind of sanction (but not necessarily 'sanctions') is necessary. Would we stand for a rich person flaunting the law and getting away with it just because they were rich? Hmm, never mind...bad example.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. I am a New Zealander...

you don't get much more "small country" than that :-)

My problem is that if they had attempted to pass a resolution, first they would have had to get a majority of votes, which would have been unlikely due to the fact that the US has bribed half the countries sitting on the SC.

Then assuming they did manage to get a resolution passed, then they would have had to enforce it. Passing a resolution then NOT being able to enforce it would have made the UN far more irrelevant in the eyes of the world than not passing one at all.

After all, failing to get enough votes is democracy. Getting enough votes but not being able to do anything about it is weakness. That is why I asked if the poster wanted the UN to declare war on the US. There is only one aspect of Bush's rantings about the UN that I agree with: a resolution is only made meaningful by the will to enforce it.

In any case, it is clear that when you refer to the UN, you have to actually think "member nations". The UN is only as relevant as the member nations make it. If the member nations refuse to enforce resolutions then those resolutions are pointless. So the real question is not "Why doesn't the UN do anything?", it is: "Why don't the member nations do anything?" And the answer is: fear and bribery.