What now for the UN and the international community?

Sparks

Well, we've seen the events of the past few weeks. The question I want to ask now, is what should be done to prevent a recurrence? How do we enforce the Hague, Geneva or Ottowa conventions? How should the UN respond, and how should it change in response to the events of the past months?

Indeed, can anything be done? And if not, where do we end up?

Éomer of Rohan

I'd imagine that, quite frankly, we can't enforce them. The UN does not have any real power unless nation states cooperate and what is more, nothing can be done about the US and her flagrant breaches unless the US itself gives the 'ok' which of course they will never do. The only thing that could perhaps save the United Nations is a restructuring of the Security Council with no permanent members and no vetoes - which would mean sanctions could be imposed on the US if she broke her mandate under the UN - such as under 1441; if it was ruled by the new Security Council that this was in breach of UN specifications then there would be no veto to stop Article 41 Chapter VII being enacted. It is unlikely this will happen for exactly that reason - the US would never allow it and so might still seems to rule the day against intelligence and common sense.

Sand

Well France, Germany and Russia came together to try and stop the liberation for a variety of reasons, and whilst they may have accepted that they couldnt stop the allies if they really wanted to go in a depose Saddam they no doubt hoped it would be so bloody, bitter and hardfought (Stalingrad, Vietnam etc etc ) that they would emerge as the good guys.

Now in the aftermath of Iraqis celebrating their liberation, casting down symbols of the regime and looting formerly feared regime agencies and embracing allied soldiers and chanting Bush and Blairs name with an incredibly low amount of casualties the stance of the French, Russian and Germans is looking increasingly embarrasing - is this what they opposed? France and Germany have been making sheepish noises to the US to kiss and make up, whilst the US has been playing games with the Russians by hinting at a possible role for them in post war Iraq.

I think the UN has been pretty much tested and found wanting - its an organisation which is supposed to work for the betterment of humanity, but found itself protecting a regime that is everything it should oppose because of pure politics. When the allies went ahead without it, to accomplish the liberation of Iraq - a good thing, which few would disagree with - they had to do so against the wishes of the UN, which is truly sad.

The anti-war protestors seem to have gotten awfully quiet - its hard to claim to have the moral high ground when human shields in Iraq apparently have to protected by the great satan from the average Iraqi. Dont worry though, theyll be back in time for the next american intervention/vietnam. There is of yet, no plans to demonstrate in protest against the evils of Saddams regime.

I think the EU has been set back in its development given the bitterness of the arguments prior to the liberation, the US relationship with France has been heavily damaged, Bush and Schroeder apparently despise each other personally so that doesnt bode well for US-German relations; perhaps more importantly the US has probably come to regard any French dominated EU to be against its interests. The UN has basically been shown up for what it is , a talking shop with a good handle on NGO work. Its assistance in Iraq will be useful but I doubt it will be let anywhere near the steering wheel or well see the French and Russians using it as a tool to force their plans for Iraqi oil.

The future of the "international community" will be tied to how Iraq develops. The allies are now apparently beginning to restore law and order and make it safe for the NGOs to enter and begin their work. If Iraq begins to rebuild in a steady fashion, If the allies can begin withdrawing troops and turning over authority to a democratic Iraqi government as soon as is safe then the position of those advocating interventionism will be heavily strenthened. There will be toothing problems of course, and if they become too prevalent then the choruses of "I told you so" will rise up again and the position of the non- intervention will be strenthened ( having fallen so low in recent days ).

So its a case of what youre hoping for.

mike65

I think we're heading into the "post UN world" by UN I mean security council really. It'll still do plenty of work that all countires will want to see done, but on geo-politcs its finnished. Its been found wanting in that respect for many years but now the games up. Conflict resolution and related matters will I belive become more the concern of ad-hoc "coalitions". This may not be big or clever but the UN proberly has itself to blame rather than the USA.

from Eomer of Rohan

The only thing that could perhaps save the United Nations is a restructuring of the Security Council with no permanent members and no vetoes...

I agree with E of R :eek:

Mike.

ps sand, on the oil I see the Russians are thinking
about writing off the Iraqi billions...

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The anti-war protestors seem to have gotten awfully quiet

That wouldnt be because the current phase of the war is effectively over?

more importantly the US has probably come to regard any French dominated EU to be against its interests.

Shouldnt you be a bit more honest and say that the US considers any non-kowtowing EU to be against its interests, regardless of what group is influencing things within it.

well see the French and Russians using it as a tool to force their plans for Iraqi oil.

As opposed to the non-UN solution of "we'll bomb your country, get you to pay us to rebuild it, and then we'll control what gets done with your emerging government, your oilfields, and the rest".

Yeah - I can clearly see how the UN has been shown to be lacking in this area.

The future of the "international community" will be tied to how Iraq develops.

More accurately, the future of the international community is tied to how much the US insists the rest of the world should do what it says, and how the rest of the world react to that.

Iraq is nothing but a symptom - dont bill it as the cause.

There will be toothing problems of course, and if they become too prevalent then the choruses of "I told you so" will rise up again and the position of the non- intervention will be strenthened ( having fallen so low in recent days ).

So its a case of what youre hoping for.

I think everyone should be hoping that Iraq actually does gain proper democracy and all that comes with it.

The likelihood of us seeing that in our lifetime is, in my opinion, no different to what it was before all of this started - absolutely non-existant.

It is a case of what you expect, and I think the US expect Iraq to be massively grateful, and will therefore get huge influence over the formation of an Iraqi government and what gets done with Iraqi oil.

I'm not sure Iraq expect to be so subservient to the US, and I expect that the resolution of these two differing expectations will be telling.

Whats depressing is that the more freedom Iraq wants to have from US control, the bleaker its future looks.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
I think the UN has been pretty much tested and found wanting - its an organisation which is supposed to work for the betterment of humanity, but found itself protecting a regime that is everything it should oppose because of pure politics.

But you seem to be misunderstanding how the UN works. It's basically an association, and the Security Council its board of directors. The UN only gets to do something when its members agree that it should, otherwise they all do their own thing. The failure to reach agreement in the Security Council was obviously a failure of its members and not of the UN itself. What would you rather have - a UN that was able to force its own beliefs onto every country in the world? Exactly how did the UN fail with regards to the Iraq war - did it fail to prevent it or did it fail to build agreement behind it? Any reasonable person can see that it's a meaningless question since the UN will work if countries agree and won't if they don't.

The UN is stuffed with people who want to see progress towards peace, development and human rights for all. Their work depends on the agreed support of member countries. When the countries with the most clout block the work they would like to do, as frequently happens, there's not much they can do about it. Responsibility for the continuing failures to reach peace, development and human rights for all rests entirely with member countries themselves; to suggest otherwise is to dodge responsibility and pin blame on a handy bogeyman. Again, would you prefer a UN with tax-raising and executive powers of its own, or would you prefer it to remain a talking shop?

When the allies went ahead without it, to accomplish the liberation of Iraq - a good thing, which few would disagree with - they had to do so against the wishes of the UN, which is truly sad.

There is no such thing as 'the wishes of the UN', apart from its wish to uphold its founding principles and the wishes agreed upon by members. In this case, most members of the General Assembly and of the Security Council did not support the US/UK action so while the action was not technically against 'the wishes of the UN' it was certainly against the wishes of most of its members.

The anti-war protestors seem to have gotten awfully quiet

Then you must be going deaf. These boards have been as busy as ever with debate between pro and anti-war sides, and protests continue around the world - 100,000 in London today, for example.

The allies are now apparently beginning to restore law and order and make it safe for the NGOs to enter and begin their work.

No, they're hoping to do that soon. Indications are they're not there yet. They don't seem to have thought about what would happen when the Iraqi regime collapsed, which rather reinforces the opinion that the 'reconstruction' will be about as thorough and effective as that in Afghanistan has been. As it stands, Baghdad is apparently a rather hellish place to be right now, and the various institutions that any future regime will require - schools, universities, hospitals, adminstrative and bureacratic offices - are being destroyed by looters. With every passing hour the amount the US/UK will have to spend to help create a functioning society goes up, and the frustrations of ordinary Iraqis increase.

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
...that the 'reconstruction' will be about as thorough and effective as that in Afghanistan has been.

Iraq's rebuilding will be faster, more thorough, and in every way superior to that of Afghanistan......assuming that a functional government can be instilled and maintained.

Why?

Simple :

Rebuilding Afghanistan is a work of charity. Rebuilding Iraq is a business.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey

Rebuilding Afghanistan is a work of charity. Rebuilding Iraq is a business.

There was a business motivation to rebuilding Afghanistan too - oil pipelines and all that - but even so the results have not been that encouraging.

Besides, making Iraq safe for business is not the same as rebuilding its society. Making it safe for business requires security and some new infrastructure for the main cities and for oil fields and their networks, but rebuilding a society requires huge investment of not only money but time, skill and effort. New physical infrastructure, new social networks and forms of organisation, new systems of public administration, public services and public law and order need to be set up. New schools and hospitals have to be built, new staff found or rehired and retrained.

It's a massive undertaking over a long term, often without immediate or even directly measurable benefits. As I said I'm not convinced the US/UK have planned for it adequately - and that's if they even intend to carry out such a full programme rather than doing just the bare minimum to 'make it safe for business'. I've yet to hear of any significant commitments of aid or reconstruction funding to Iraq (barring I think a $1bn in the most recent US budget), but when we do it'd be advisable to bear Afghanistan in mind again: A few rich countries pledged an inadequate amount of aid, then failed to deliver even that.

The obvious solution is that Iraq will pay for its own reconstruction out of the proceeds of oil sales, or by privatisation. But even this will be gradual, and hardly a guaranteed income stream on which to base a national reconstruction project. Add to this the possibility that oil revenues will have to be used to pay off Iraq's massive debts and you really start to wonder how this reconstruction is supposed to be paid for.

Sand

That wouldnt be because the current phase of the war is effectively over?

That would certainly have a lot to do with it - on the one hand a lot of the scaremongering they indulged in has been found to be less than accurate, but on the other hand the allies are now cleary at a "what next" crossroads where more scaremongering would surely be effective to some degree?

And anyway - I thought a lot of the protest was against the US treatment of the UN, the precedents it set for unilateral action and so on and so forth. Surely those concerns are as real and as well founded as ever? They apparently have a case in point now to whip up public hysteria?

Shouldnt you be a bit more honest and say that the US considers any non-kowtowing EU to be against its interests, regardless of what group is influencing things within it.

Oh yeah, but it would also be true to say that Chirac has discovered poplarity comes from taking a hardline attitude against the US. The US would have a different attitude to a EU dominated by say Blair than Chirac. While theyd obviously view an unfriendly EU as against its interests, theyd clearly view a French dominated EU as being unfriendly given recent history.

As opposed to the non-UN solution of "we'll bomb your country, get you to pay us to rebuild it, and then we'll control what gets done with your emerging government, your oilfields, and the rest".

Hey, the Iraqis are closer to a representitive government now than they have ever been under the UNs food for oil program.

Iraq is nothing but a symptom - dont bill it as the cause.

Not really what I was trying to do - If the US is shown to be effective in giving the Iraqis a chance at a better life and government with relatively little human cost then clearly the interventionist viewpoint will be strenthened as we can say "Well look at Iraq" the next time a debate comes up.

Whereas if Iraq goes down the tubes people well say is that what people died for? And the next time a debate comes up theyll say "Well look at Iraq".

I believe interventions are a valuable tool against ditators and tyrants. What the world believes will be affected by how Iraq turns out.

Whats depressing is that the more freedom Iraq wants to have from US control, the bleaker its future looks.

No its future looks bleaker when you hear of tribal and religious leaders being approached to run a government, with exiles with no political support being parachuted in to head them. The republicans seem to despise nation building so they will no doubt be happy to hand over power asap - and perhaps too soon - so long as the oil wells keep running - which is in the Iraqi interest anyway....

The failure to reach agreement in the Security Council was obviously a failure of its members and not of the UN itself.

I would view it as a failure of the UN in concept and execution to be honest.

What would you rather have - a UN that was able to force its own beliefs onto every country in the world?

Would its beliefs be the ones enshrined in its charter? If so, then why shouldnt these be the bottom line everyone can expect?

If you mean the beliefs held by its members then christ no- the UN is home to some of the most terrifying regimes in history......predictably banal "Do you mean the US" from the SWP types is already noted and absorped:|

Again, would you prefer a UN with tax-raising and executive powers of its own, or would you prefer it to remain a talking shop?

In its current form? No. I wouldnt like to think that regimes that rival Sinn Feinn in their media skills would be anywhere near the purse strings when they would be the worst offenders.....predictably banal blah blah blah you know the rest

There is no such thing as 'the wishes of the UN', apart from its wish to uphold its founding principles and the wishes agreed upon by members.

But it only wishes to uphold *some* of its principles in regards of Saddam and his regime?

Then you must be going deaf. These boards have been as busy as ever with debate between pro and anti-war sides, and protests continue around the world - 100,000 in London today, for example.

Down from what was supposed to be millions not so long ago....another week or two and it will thousands, then they wont even bother congregating in london, itll be back to the local campus....until the "next vietnam" anyway.

No, they're hoping to do that soon. Indications are they're not there yet.

Hence why I said theyre beginning, by bringing in the police force so that hopefully joint patrols can then take place.

don't seem to have thought about what would happen when the Iraqi regime collapsed

Could be more even they didnt expect the regime to crumble so readily in saddams stalingrad. Last I heard they took a city of 5 or more million with only 15000 troops, a lot of whom are still battling pockets of resistance - making it hard to send troops off to become a quasi police force as they just dont have the amount of troops to do that. Thats apparently what the american soldiers themselves were saying, that theyd love to help but they dont have the numbers it would take yet.

With every passing hour the amount the US/UK will have to spend to help create a functioning society goes up, and the frustrations of ordinary Iraqis increase.

Exactly - its why the allies are anxious to try and get civil law and order up and running to some degree as soon as possible. The British have apparently rounded up those convicted of serious crimes in pretty makeshift camps - they apparently can only hold them for 120 days so theyre pretty much racing to get some sort of legal system operational before then.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Oh yeah, but it would also be true to say that Chirac has discovered poplarity comes from taking a hardline attitude against the US.

I think you are believing a bit too much of the anti-French press here Chirac has discovered that making a decision that more than 90% of your nation believe is the right one is incredibly popular. This is not necessarily taking a hardline attitude against the US - it just happens to be in this case.

The US would have a different attitude to a EU dominated by say Blair than Chirac.

Yes, except that the EU isnt dominated by either, nor is it ever likely to be, so whats the point you're trying to make?

I keep hearing about a dominated EU - beit a "big 4 dominated EU", a "German dominated EU", a "French dominated EU", or occasionally a "NATO-dominated EU".

Of all of these, I fail to see how the French could possibly dominate the EU, so I just dont see the relevance of a "French dominated EU" comment. I'm accepting that you'll just bash the French given half an opportunity because of your undying love for them, but this just seems a step too far. They're vocal, yes, but "dominating"? They're too reliant on the agreement of others.

I would also point out that the French - and the EU in general - have massive investment in the US. Its not in their interests to have unfriendly ties with the US.

Why do so many governments (French and US included) always have to act like petulant children when they dont get things their way? God almighty....after having gotten to the top of their national structure, you think that some politicians would have grasped the concepts behind democracy and diplomacy at this point.

Hey, the Iraqis are closer to a representitive government now than they have ever been under the UNs food for oil program.

Agreed, in that there's a chance they may actually get one now. Of course, there's a lot of other chances too, not all so pretty.

Whereas if Iraq goes down the tubes people well say is that what people died for? And the next time a debate comes up theyll say "Well look at Iraq".

Actually, next time a debate comes up, the anti-intervention people will say "well, look at the mess in Iraq", and the pro-intervention will explain why that particular mess isnt their fault, or is growing pains, or why things are different now and such messes wont happen again".

I believe interventions are a valuable tool against ditators and tyrants. What the world believes will be affected by how Iraq turns out.

The only people in the world who's opinion on interventionism will have been changed will be those who bought into the convenient "revised mission" that this was a freedom op to free people from a tyrant. For proof, witness the US and UK telling us repeatedly that there is no plan to keep rolling....no other tyrants and dictators that people deserve to be free from.

Now, unless you had your head surgically amputated in your formative years ("you the reader", not "you Sand"), you are going to be aware that Saddam was not the last dictator on the planet.

Interventionism may be a good tool to get rid of tyrants and dictators (if you wish to establish a precedent that armed conflict is a legitimate means of dealing with nations you dont wish to deal with), but I don't think anyone seriously believes that the point of interventionism is to free the people. Thats just an added bonus. Is it enough of a bonus? I'm not convinced that many people will have their opinion swayed that it is.....just as I'm pretty sure that a disastrous outcome (which is still possible) wont dissuade many pro-interventinists from adopting the same stance next time and using the "we have learned from...." argument.

Hence why I said theyre beginning, by bringing in the police force so that hopefully joint patrols can then take place.

And they're beginning the plans to decrease US military presence in Iraq. Given that they didnt want to implement policing initially on the grounds that it wasnt what they were trained for, and they didnt have the resources for a city the size of Baghdad....how is reducing their force size going to help?

Thats apparently what the american soldiers themselves were saying, that theyd love to help but they dont have the numbers it would take yet.

Yup, and their bosses have said that they have started the plans to send these people home, and that its time to start reducing presence.

Hopefully these two issues dont actually clash as much as they appear to.

they apparently can only hold them for 120 days so theyre pretty much racing to get some sort of legal system operational before then.

Yeah - cause another Gitmo could lose them Iraq again.

jc