Interesting article on the UN veto
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm"; target="_blank">From the BBC</a> ... naturally.
In a nutshell, the USSR was veto mad but has only used it twice since the collapse of communism. Vetoed just about anything. Behaving these days.
The US remains veto crazy, and last vetoed criticism of Israel for killing a bunch of UN officials and blowing up a WHO food warehouse. Vetoes anything critical of Israel which is the majority of US vetoes, also vetoed anything critical of apartheid South Africa and US activities in Nicaragua, Vietnam and Panama. Nice.
The UK's only solo veto was when Rhodesia was turning into Zimbabwe. A few other craven co-vetoes on Suez and post-Empire stuff.
China's blocked a couple of entries into the UN.
France has a similar record to the UK, last vetoed on a dispute over the Comoros.
In a nutshell, the USSR was veto mad but has only used it twice since the collapse of communism. Vetoed just about anything. Behaving these days.
The US remains veto crazy, and last vetoed criticism of Israel for killing a bunch of UN officials and blowing up a WHO food warehouse. Vetoes anything critical of Israel which is the majority of US vetoes, also vetoed anything critical of apartheid South Africa and US activities in Nicaragua, Vietnam and Panama. Nice.
The UK's only solo veto was when Rhodesia was turning into Zimbabwe. A few other craven co-vetoes on Suez and post-Empire stuff.
China's blocked a couple of entries into the UN.
France has a similar record to the UK, last vetoed on a dispute over the Comoros.
Comments
Of course, the Kosovo situation in 99 would have been vetoed by Russia had we put that to a vote. A shame that we acted unilaterally rather than seeking a multilateral solution.
[quote]Vetoes anything critical of Israel which is the majority of US vetoes,<hr></blockquote>
Not strictly true that we veto anything and everything on Israel. Most recently I believe was in September when we abstained on a resolution regarding Israel surrounding Arafat. But on the whole true obviously.
As I'm sure you will recall, the reason that the US vetoed Syria's resolution regarding the UN worker and warehouse was that it failed to address the issue of Palestinian terrorism adequately. The US requested that the resolution include a condemantion naming Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades "as organizations responsible for acts of terrorism" and "call for dismantling the infrastructure, which supports these terror operations wherever located." Of course Syria wasn't too keen on that which only makes sense when you consider the political considerations and their role in sponsoring terror in Israel and so they refused to negotiate on amendments.
Personally I don't agree with the way the US supports Israel in many regards but the other members of the UN have often come up short in condemning the actions of some of the Palestinians groups and their sponsors.
Anyway, the UN is a joke. Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism on the security council, Libya as head of human rights commission, Iraq/Iran leading the disarmament commission even it is mostly symbolic crap. In an attempt to be inclusive and fair the UN has ceded morality and logic.
The UN should be blown up and started again as a strictly democratic institution. Want to join? Gotta be UN certified as having democratic elections over the course of 10+ years and continuing. If you want a voice in the world forum you need to give the people of your country a voice via some sort of republican/democratic system. And if that is not for you, then you don't join. Never happen of course.
And the security council needs to be refigured IMO. France has no business being a permanent member on the Security Council. UK has a bit more so since they have a better defense force but even still they are a bit questionable. India should probably be on there, fairly stable democracy, competent military, huge population, only big problem is the Kashmir situation. Maybe if they get it together than the EU could be on there with India in place of UK and France. Though I am skeptical that the EU defense force will be much militarily. If we really wanted to be bold they could add Turkey as a permanent member as well, giving more of a voice to the Muslims for a country with a solid military and democratic traditions. Cyprus and Kurds and stuff are issues but all countries have issues.
Edit:
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>
And the security council needs to be refigured IMO. France has no business being a permanent member on the Security Council. UK has a bit more so since they have a better defense force but even still they are a bit questionable. India should probably be on there, fairly stable democracy, competent military, huge population, only big problem is the Kashmir situation. Maybe if they get it together than the EU could be on there with India in place of UK and France. Though I am skeptical that the EU defense force will be much militarily. If we really wanted to be bold they could add Turkey as a permanent member as well, giving more of a voice to the Muslims for a country with a solid military and democratic traditions. Cyprus and Kurds and stuff are issues but all countries have issues.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes France disagree with US for a subject, remove it from the security council.
All permanent members with the vetoe votes of the security council have nukes. (US, China, UK, Russia, France). New incorportations, like india have to be made, but not replacement.
Unfortunately the jew hating bigots at the UN love to pass their anti-jew resolutions at the drop of a hat. You'd think France or Germany could veto one or two of these <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> Or maybe sponsor one against Terrorist Arafat. But how can you condemn what you love, a jew killing terrorist?
<strong> Or maybe sponsor one against Terrorist Arafat. But how can you condemn what you love, a jew killing terrorist?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't you mean a jew-killing terrorist ?
I didn't say France should be removed because they disagreed. Note that I did not call for Russia to be removed nor China and I also mentioned that there was a case for the UK being axed as well. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. It's OK though, I still love you anyway, strictly in a platonic sense of course.
You have to look at several issues IMO in seeing who should be on the security council. Conventional military strength. Population. Nuclear Weapons. GDP. Ethnicity and Religion to a lesser extent. Diplomatic Gravitas.
The French have the weakest military among the 5 permanent members. Their economy in the relative present is weaker than the US, UK and China and Russia has far more growth potential economically than the French. Their welfarm system and govt are too large to have much of a prospect of strong growth anytime soon. Their population is around what, 60 million, which makes them 1/5 of the size of the US and Russia, even a smaller fraction of the Chinese. They are strong diplomatically within Western Europe and some former colonial areas but are weak on Asia and the Middle East. The 21st century will be about the rise of Asia and the Middle East after all. Nukes they got em but not as many as the US and Russia and not as many as China will have soon enough.
Now having said all that you can say basically the same things about the UK. The UK does put more money into their conventional military but other than that they are more or less comparable to France relative to the other 3. Well and the UK is not as keen on heavy EU integration with the common defense force and a real EU presidency and so forth.
It would depend greatly on the ascension of the EU to the council which would necessitate a competent military force. If so then France would be the first to go since they are the bigger backers of a strong EU. And they seem more interested in a European defense force than NATO. That's how they've played the game so they can be the ones to give up their seat for the EU to join. But of course they wouldn't do so unless UK was losing their seat. I could go either way on that one.
But anyway, I think you need a shift towards India which is a very important country now and going forward. Second largest population, primarily Hindu but somewhat diverse nation, decent military, has nukes, great economic potential etc.
The Turkey thing is a bit more dubious, I would do it primarily as a nod to Muslims and also to reward Turkey for being a mostly peaceful Muslim nation with a secular (basically) democracy. But unlike India and the EU which are starting to be discussed as possible security council members, no one else besides me is proposing Turkey be on the Security council.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: ColanderOfDeath ]</p>
[quote]All permanent members with the vetoe votes of the security council have nukes. (US, China, UK, Russia, France). New incorportations, like india have to be made, but not replacement.<hr></blockquote>
So then we should make North Korea, Pakistan and Israel permanent members too since they have nukes? Maybe we can keep a seat warm for Iran.
Also those countries were permanent members since they won World War II and were big powers in 1945 or so not because they had nukes. Recall that the Chinese were originally represented by what is now the Taiwanese which to the best of my knowledge didn't have nukes htrough 49 when they wree in power in China proper and never did in Taiwan. And I don't think Russia had nukes till 48 which is after the Security Council was set up IIRC. And the UK and France didn't develop their nukes till after Russia either. The US was hte only country with nukes when the council member was setup. I might be wrong on my history and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am but that is my recollection of how it went.
[quote] Gotta be UN certified as having democratic elections over the course of 10+ years and continuing <hr></blockquote>
would we be included?? would we need to lose the electoral college since popular vote is not what elects our president? just wondering who decides what is democratic...is the electoral college democratic?? should we go back to one person, one vote, or do we accept that that concept is basically a myth in a country as large as ours?
g
This is how I would structure it:
Permanent 5: [With veto power]
Russia
India
China - Keep out until democratized
USA
EU- Keep British/French till China is aboard
Permanent 9: [No veto power]
Turkey
Israel
Canada
Mexico
Japan
Korea
Taiwan
Brazil
South Africa
Rotating 5: [No veto power]
Everyone else who qualify
10 votes make for a simple majority to pass resolutions.
Aside from that, the UN definitely needs to move towards a system that awards countries that meet a certain standard (freedom to vote for everyone, including women, freedom of speech for everyone, including women, ect.) with more power in the general assembly. We need to migrate the dictatorships of the world towards democracy.
No. But the primary charge of the Security Council is promoting peace and safety. Sometimes that requires war and sometimes it requires the threat of war, at least it does unless you are a pacifist living in an imaginary world. If countries want the power and responsibility that comes with being a permanent veto member than you need to bring somethings to the table. Maybe that doesn't necessarily mean military strength but it is the most obvious place to start. Perhaps there is a place though for countries like Germany and Japan for example that are nice countries on the whole but with weak militaries. Japan after all always kicks in some cash to help pay for some fighting and some peacekeeping.
[quote]would we be included?? would we need to lose the electoral college since popular vote is not what elects our president? just wondering who decides what is democratic...is the electoral college democratic?? should we go back to one person, one vote, or do we accept that that concept is basically a myth in a country as large as ours?<hr></blockquote>
It is still a republican form of government even if our winner take all style is different from the proportionment type system you say in many other countries. The people still control the leadership. As far as the details in pressing that into guidelines, I'm sure that could be figured out.
I'd love to flush the electoral college down the shitter but that's really a seperate issue.
[quote]
Permanent 5: [With veto power]
Russia
India
China - Keep out until democratized
USA
EU- Keep British/French till China is aboard
Permanent 9: [No veto power]
Turkey
Israel
Canada
Mexico
Japan
Korea
Taiwan
Brazil
South Africa<hr></blockquote>
I could go for something along those lines. You might need another South American country. Including all 3 North American countries and just one South American seems a little unbalanced. Maybe Mexico and Canada alternate for one seat and say Chile/Argentine or whomever split the other one. Another African country would be nice but hte pickins are slim.
Obviously certain countries would object to other countries' membership, even non-democracies. China and Taiwan. Israel and ____. North Korea would bitch about South Korea. China might not like India as a rival power fairly close by. Always gonna be lots of problems though.
The issue of vetoes limiting the power of the security council doesn't bother me too much. But to each their own.
--
you're saying the UN Security council is the military arm for "Security"?
(made up of 'hawk-ish' countries that go in and make war... um that list sounds pretty small lately... maybe USA, UK, AUS today, but mostly just the US and whichever neighbourhood combatants need separating)
then it needs a UN Peacekeeping council for the larger task of clean-up and "Peacekeeping"
(made up of 'dove-ish' countries that are not part of the war... respected for neutrality and past blue-beret record, that list is larger, but only a few nations have the training or experience required... Canada, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc)
the technical capabilities to do both roles needs to be separated from the willingness to do either one (and local tolerance/respect for a particular occupation/police force)
the blue hats have stood between some pretty hostile neighbours in the past, and as long as we cut some orders that don't tie their hands like Rwanda or some former Yugoslavian deployments... precedent is building that the world community _can_ referee disputes with clear mandate and commitment.
convincing folks to commit seems to be the issue, so maybe the inspectors need their own satellite analysis team... there are numerous commercial imagery sources (GlobeExplorer, SPOT, NASA, etc) on the web that can be used without revealing sources... everybody knows there are satellites and planes overflying places... some are better than others, but most people couldn't tell if the source was orbital or not. refusing to release "incriminating pictures" because of fear that the bad guys might realize they're being observed from above is a non-sequitir.
worries about said image quality revealing your technological capabilities is similarly dense... security video cameras, DNA profiling and fingerprinting have improved crime-detection to the point where the whole planet must know that if you hold up a 7-11 or bank, the authorities are gonna use this technology to find you... the fact that such "secret" crime-busting tools are in police hands doesn't prevent criminals from making the same mistakes and getting caught. cameras deter some crime, but criminal knowledge of cameras hasn't rendered them ineffective.
people know wiretapping is possible, yet incriminating things are still said on phones.
sources and methods of such types don't need protecting... that's just the spooks being neurotic. confidential informants, sure, need to stay confidential, but even with identity obscured and witness protection plan in place, all proof must be scrutinized for any justice to have meaning
it's all about proof.
not fabricated or plagiarized or fudged or creatively translated and interpreted or photoshop...
show the pictures. provide the smoking gun. present the fingerprints on WoMD for scrutiny.
all the world is asking for is irrefutable evidence... if the US has a tip, let the inspectors and journalists make an unannounced visit to confirm.
So far, the US seems to be missing this.
many reasonable countries would support action wholeheartedly if only they saw something other than circumstantial "he tried to kill my dad" bushisms, and seemingly staged shock of "they might have the Anthrax we *cough* gave them *cough*", except that isn't being admitted.
burden of proof, baby
no doubt...i have always said that we should take a shot at saddam's dome, and i have always said i would support UN authority should they declare a war needed (as for the pacifist living in an imaginary world...if directed my way because i often refer to myself as a pacifist...hell, i'm irish and a drinker...i have been in many many bar fights and if the iraqi's were coming to american soil i would've already bought rifles for the whole family and be training my daughters on the "don't go for the arms or legs, just two quick shots to the toros" school of home warfare...so i am likely the most hostile pacifist there is...after all, you can spell pacifist without fist....
i also think that bush could and should be claiming victory for stepping up the pressure, putting the military nearby and getting saddam to start complying...keep the pressure on till you get what you want/need...but to start a war without UN approval??
he should be doing more to show us and the world why...
or he should be working the UN more...do you think russia or france would object if we told them all promises made by saddam in terms of oil and production would be honored post saddam removal?? they don't care about saddam, they care about promises made and debt owed...right now, because of UN sanctions, they ain't gettin' squat out of iraq...if the UN kills saddam and starts a new government, russia and france could start pumping that oil that iraq has promised them...
it would be win-win...we get UN approval...UN starts war...we get rid of saddam and their possible WOMD...we get a democracy in the arab world that is thankfull to the US and UN...Iraqi people get their oil flowing and money and jobs coming in...france and russia get their contracts honored because they didn't veto the use of force...the cost of the war is not carried by the US alone, but spread across many nations....g
no doubt...i have always said that we should take a shot at saddam's dome, and i have always said i would support UN authority should they declare a war needed (as for the pacifist living in an imaginary world...if directed my way because i often refer to myself as a pacifist...hell, i'm irish and a drinker...i have been in many many bar fights and if the iraqi's were coming to american soil i would've already bought rifles for the whole family and be training my daughters on the "don't go for the arms or legs, just two quick shots to the toros" school of home warfare...so i am likely the most hostile pacifist there is...after all, you can spell pacifist without fist....<hr></blockquote>
Are your daughters 18?
My comment about pacifists was directed at pacifists and not you in particular. I wouldn't call you out anyway as you seem a pleasant enough fellow even if I was disturbing recently to see you post the words, "thanks genital man" which gave me pause about what sort of superheroes you are hanging out with. But anyway...
One shot to the dome would be nice, but not so easy to pull off it seems.
I wonder sometimes what might have happened had we pushed for inspections as one track and a seperate track calling for a war crimes tribunal for Iraq over Iran/Kurds/Shi'a/Kuwait/Whomever. We all know that regime change was part of the administration's agenda and a legit case can easily be made morally and legally for Saddam to stand trial at The Hague. Perhaps a tact focusing on the humanitarian aspect of Saddam's past and a more direct attempt to resolve that might have won favor with certain groups who favor such endeavors. But there are tons of ways on which to second guess our administration's ham handed diplomacy.
[quote]i also think that bush could and should be claiming victory for stepping up the pressure, putting the military nearby and getting saddam to start complying...keep the pressure on till you get what you want/need...but to start a war without UN approval?? <hr></blockquote>
I agree to some extent but I think that will be lost in the political fallout of this disagreement which is as large as anything that the "allies" have gone through since perhaps the Suez Canal. Plus the actual coverage of the dirty business will take over the headlines soon enough anyway.
I don't place much stock in UN approval. Getting the five major powers plus others to agree on much of consequence is not easy. But others do care about it so it has value. At the end of the day, despite my reservations about many of the things my country does and in particular about the men running it at present, I am still more willing to trust them than to trust many others nations.
Plus I don't find any more moral authority in the UN and its constituentcy than I do in what we do. Syria is Lebanon's pimp and a terrorist state. China still has Tibet in their belly and a horrendous lack of personal freedoms in spite of their newfound love for 8% economic growth. Russia is still ****ing with the Chechnyans after taking over how many states in the last 60 years? The UK and France ****ed up half of the world with their colonialism. Germany we can thank for our World Wars. I can't think of anything to blame poor Bulgaria for. Maybe we should make them king of the world. Pakistan is run by a guy who pulled off a military coup, they sponsor Muslim seperatists in Kashmir and Punjab and Gungarat and they've developed nukes on the downlow. Mexico's treatment of First Peoples is even worse than our own record. Plus I've had enough frijoles negro before entering crowded spaces to know that the Mexicans are never to be trusted. Chile, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea I must admit that I don't know too much about them. But after all I am an American pig. Regardless, forgive me if I am not overwhelmed at the prospect of the moral power conveyed by a UN mandate. We are all bloody whores. Some of us just have better tanks and more cashflow than others.
It's an immoral world and I don't believe for a second that any of these countries have suddenly gotten religion. But that can be argued until the German chicks come home.
[quote]he should be doing more to show us and the world why...
or he should be working the UN more...do you think russia or france would object if we told them all promises made by saddam in terms of oil and production would be honored post saddam removal?? <hr></blockquote>
I think Putin is a pragmatist and could be persuaded. We probably hurt ourselves before the Iraq issue though with not following up with rewards for NATO, ABM, yada yada yada. Likewise for ICC, Kyoto etc. Bush burned some bridges and did not make friends when he had the chance. A little ass kissing goes a long ways.
Chirac, I thought he was just a French politician being a French politician as the tradition has been for decades. But he seems obsessed with unipolarity and wants an all out battle. I misjudged him, I think the administration may have as well. As Radio Rahim said, put some mo mozzarella on that mother****ing shit Chirac. We'll see.
[quote]it would be win-win...we get UN approval...UN starts war...we get rid of saddam and their possible WOMD...we get a democracy in the arab world that is thankfull to the US and UN...Iraqi people get their oil flowing and money and jobs coming in...france and russia get their contracts honored because they didn't veto the use of force...the cost of the war is not carried by the US alone, but spread across many nations....g<hr></blockquote>
Sounds nice but obviously we have gotten sidetracked. Somewhere along the way it didn't work out. **** it. Let's just nuke everyone anyway. The world is overpopulated anyway and at the right we're going we are gonna drive the polar bears to extinction. Better to annhilate mankind and start over again. Preferably without Bush.
It's not even about Iraq for Chirac anymore. I doubt it ever was. What it's about is restraining and denying American power, by any and all means necessary. I won't even get into the moral argument, which IMHAO (A = American) is an insulting sham, but in a purely practical sense it's just dumb. Chirac is going to destroy the UN, or at least convince the US to permanently ignore it, in his desperate attempt to use the UN to shackle the US. Passing or vetoing UN resolutions doesn't change the fundamental geopolitics of the world. Or, if you try to wrap a rubber band around a gorilla, the rubber band will break and the gorilla won't notice. Chirac is no Bismark, or even a Kissinger.
[...rant] And what does "UN approval" mean, anyway? It seems to me, at the moment, to mean "Chirac approves". Why the hell should 99.99% of Europeans, or anyone else for that matter, care if Chirac approves of the shampoo they use? If the cause is just, it's just. If it isn't, it isn't - what does Chirac, or the UN, have to do with it?
[/rant] I'm having a ranty day, apparently. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Edit: Can't even get my UBB code right.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Towel ]</p>
<strong>
Plus I've had enough frijoles negro before entering crowded spaces to know that the Mexicans are never to be trusted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mmmm, frijoles negros.... aaghhrrrhrrrhhh
For the moment EU is just an economical entity, with only an embryonic defense and foreign policy. When it will be the case, i will find normal that there will be only seat for EU, one seat for US, one seat for China and one seat for Russia. But there is a long, long way to have a serious europe entity, decades at my advice.
India is not ready to enter in the security council as a permanent member.
India is still in cold (not so cold sometimes) war with pakistan, at the difference of China (even China wants a reunification with Taiwan). The influence of india in the world foreign policy is not very big either and you have to solve the eternal rivaltry between Pakistan and India : in short they are not ready.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
India Pakistan is hardly eternal, it didn't start until 1947. But whatever.
India and Pakistan as a conflict is no different than the Russia in Chechnya and the Chinese in their Western provinces fighting Muslim seperatism. Britain is partly to blame for the India Pakistan problem as well. And while the Western countries aren't going through the same sorts of internal civil fights, we are likewise dealing with the issue of Muslim branded terrorism. I fail to see how the specifics of the situation in India really amount to much of a difference between the broader problem of Islam being hijacked as a vehicle for various punk bitches whose actions effect every country including those on the security council.
The influence of India is not particularly big but it really isn't that much less than the UK or France particularly going forward. I'm not suggesting it happen next week, but there is little doubt that in 25 years or so India is going to be a more important country overall than France or the UK. That needs to be addressed at some point.