Un v USA

clansman

If america attacks iran what will happen to the UN.


Will aremica be kicked out? or will it split?

There'll be a split, in my opinion. Purely because no one nation has enough support in the UN to pass such a vote. The US is just too powerful.

Johnmb

IMO, the only way the UN can survive as a relevant organisation into the future is to remove the veto. It simply doesn't work as an enforcement agency as long as its own rules allow certain countries and their buddies to be above international law. The US would withdraw if their veto was removed, but that would be irrelevant as the others would remain if things were handled correctly. Replace the veto with a referral, i.e. if a Security Council resolution gets the 9 votes in favour, but one or more of the permanent members voted no, then rather than being vetoed, the resolution is referred to the General Assembly, whereby it will need 60% of the voting members to vote yes in order to be passed. That would be enough to keep Russia and France on board I think, and the threat that if you leave and then come back you won't be given back your permenant membership will be enough to keep Britain on board. China may need some guarantees, such as being able to retain vetos over further possible changes to the Charter, but that would be a given. If it came down to the US versus the rest of the world, they'd be controlled, maybe not militarily, but economically the UN could inflict major damage if the US ever broke international law again.

Of course to do that it may require that all nations officially resign from the UN and set up a new organisation with the exact same rules except for the veto part. Organising something on that scale would be very difficult, but I think it could be done if someone made a real effort to do so. The vast majority of countries that are not permanent members are unlikely to have any objections to that part of the UN charter being changed.

The US would withdraw if their veto was removed

The US will not withdraw. It could be i'm taking the wrong line with this, but after spending so many billions of dollars, and bringing across so many troops. They're not going to turn around and leave. They're going to invade regardless, even if it means the end of the UN.

Johnmb

I meant they'd withdraw from the UN if their veto was removed.

The Saint

I'm sure they'd love to see the end of the UN coz it would save them having to pay the $1.8 billion that they owe the UN for years.

gandalf

Firstly Clansman its Iraq not Iran (yet - watch this space!).

To be honest the US has been ignoring the UN with regard to the Isreali situation for years so they have already been resposible for weaking the effectiveness of the UN by cherrypicking resolutions to support. However it is now at breaking point, if they engage in unilateral action they will have imho nullified the UN.

While I agree with many people on this forum in that the UN is far from perfect it is the best solution available to us at the moment. The alternative is unthinkable but the warmongers in this current US administration are ignoring this and because of that are wholly unsuited to leading the most powerful nation on the earth at this time.

Gandalf.

Besides, i doubt they like having the UN trying to create policies/mandates that restrict them, even if they do ignore them. Must be a hassle at times... :rolleyes:

Hobbes

Originally posted by clansman
If america attacks iran what will happen to the UN.

If the US is part of the UN, then how can it be UN vs US?

If the US was to break a resolution to get someone who broke a resolution. :rolleyes: then it would indeed be intresting to see what happens.

I'm pretty sure all those countries that were forced to abide to UN resolutions and UN veto's that the US helped bring about aren't going to sit around.

And all those other countries who now know that's its good to pre-emptive strike in order to defend themselves (eg. NK).

Not to mention the number of people lining up in the middle east to help get back at the US. I think it would push us close to a real third world war then since the Cuban missile crisis.

Of course it would be intresting to see how the rest of the world could punish the US for it's actions? Certainly not by Military but it could impose economic sanctions quite easily.

Certainly not by Military but it could impose economic sanctions quite easily.

Awww... i have this great image of Irish, British, French, Iraqi, & german troops peacekeeping the US, while some inspectors examine their chemical, biological, & nuke silos. Not going to happen though, unfortuently.

Economic sanctions against the US? Not likely either since with the US's current administration, such an act would probably be construed as an act of war.

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
Economic sanctions against the US? Not likely either since with the US's current administration, such an act would probably be construed as an act of war.

What would they do? Complain to the UN? :rolleyes:

Also it's not like they need excuses to go to war, just excuses that people will swallow.

Considering that the US is on a war footing and their economy is entering a rocky patch, any threat to their trade income would be dangerous to them. That is my reasoning that it could be taken badly by them. Considering how much money the US spends currently, especially hat they've spent on this Iraq Venture, sanctions could hurt them badly. Badly enough, that they might consider using military force. Unlikely. But stranger things have happened in world politics.

PHB

The UN would have to dissolve to get rid of the veto.
All resolutions must pass through the security council to pass, and the US would veto it.
Disillution of the UN anybody?

sanctions against the U.S???:rolleyes:
not workable at all here, I'm afraid as it should involve kicking out firms that employ 90,000 people.

To be honest, I'm reserving my judgement now untill after the U.S/coalition of the willing invasion of Iraq, to see if all the complaining is justified.
As the invasion is now looking very likely, we are all going to get the perfect show of what is or isn't going to happen during or after the war.

Iran might be worried alright, if the aftermath of the war places a real democracy in the middle East.
As for a U.S invasion of Iran, that's never going to happen as they haven't enough oil, for the americans to be interested right?? :rolleyes:
I note, that Tony blair has promised to put the oil under U.N guidance after the war.
mm