🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug18.053942.16300@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>  Let me back up and point out that since the UN has severely limited power
>  of enforcement, what the US, the Security Council or the General Assembly
>  dictates can be ignored. Saddam Hussein has done a fine job so far. So, it
>  really doesn't matter if the UN says to country X "Do this or else!". The
>  Gulf War was the exception, and that was due in large part to the shift in
>  the global political balance from the dissolution of the USSR. 

 Let's forget for the moment whether high principles (from the UN or not)
 can be implemented. Let's start with high principles.

 If we advocate these ideals and the US or anyone else makes them 
 unenforcible, surely that does not diminish the principles.
 
 Yet, you seem to be skipping back and forth in your argument. When the 
 principle is demanded (by me) you claim it is unenforcible; but when
 the US acts contrary to the principles, you claim the US is only acting
 against dictatorships or that the principle cannot exist because of
 dictatorship. Let's be consistent, or there is no point in discussion.
                            

>  Would you support an invasion designed to end human rights abuses in the
>  invaded country? That was the rationale applied by the Vietnamese when they
>  invaded Cambodia, to try to end the genocide being practiced by the Khmer
>  Rouge.  


 I would if it is applied consistently. I do not support the application of
 intervention only where it serves US interests (or any other big power.)
 A good example here is the slaughter by the Khmer Rouge and the slaughter in
 Timor going on at the exact same time (in fact, in terms of numbers/percentages,
 the Timor slaughter was worse.) The difference was that Indonesia was a US
 ally and Cambodia was not. Thus the Timor incident went virtually unnoticed.


>f > I do not support the concept of an international body interfering in
>f > the internal affairs of states.
>
>  Isn't that what the UN is doing now vis-a-vis Iraq and ex-Yugoslavia?
                                                 

The UN in permitted to intervene, according to the Charter when requested to
do so by the warring sides; or when one state invades another.
Now some states are arguing that the UN should be allowed to intervene in
the "internal affairs" of Iraq (Kurds, Shiites, Marsh Arabs, etc.).
Ex-Yugoslavia is now comprised of different separate states (Croatia, Bosnia-H)
and so the two situations are not entirely analagous.

But again, I stated that I can be convinced to support the idea of international
intervention against genocide if the principle is applied consistently.
That means an entirely different approach to international affairs. 
Otherwise, no. (Yes I supported the Vietnamese going into Cambodia to topple
the Khmer; no I did not support them remaining there. A UN force would have
been much more appropriate, if it was run by the UN, not the US.)


>f > Thus I support the UN interfering in the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq (but
>f > not the US running the show or massacreing 200,000 people).
>
>  You forget that the US is the only country capable of supplying the kind of
>  force used in the Gulf War (ergo, it gets to "run the show") and that the
>  number of casualties you quote is highly debatable. The blood of those sol-
>  diers and Iraqi civilians is on Hussein's hands, not the hands of the UN
>  forces that fought him. Remember, he did start the whole mess. 


 
The numbers I provide are fairly well established, but regardless, surely
this is not related to whether the US is big and powerful or not.
I do not believe that states should be allowed to dictate right and wrong
by right of their power. The US may be powerful; it may not use that power,
in my view, except to defend its own territory. In the case of a breach of
sovereignty outside the US, the UN should be used, not the US or any other
power.  

The blood you refer to in on the hands of both Hussein and the US coalition.


>f > Thus I support the UN imposing sanctions against the US for invading Pan-
>f > ama, Grenada, etc etc.
>
>  Yeah, right, and when push comes to shove, the UN (which is situated in New
>  York) gets quarantined by the US. You've got to remember that the US is the
>  biggest bully on the block, and as such it is wise to avoid antagonizing
>  it too much. Besides, who really cares about Grenada or Noriega? It wasn't
>  like the US invaded Cuba or anything. On a scale of 1 to 100, I'd rate the
>  above two actions as less than 10. 
             

 What on earth are you saying here?
 That the US should or should not be sanctioned for invading a sovereign
 state?  Be consistent. Principles are not defined by the size of states
 that are invaded nor the size of the invading force. 

 I don't believe that the UN should remain in New York. It should move
 to a "neutral" country. Perhaps Sweden or Switzerland.



>f > Perhaps you would suggest the other forum you have in mind.
>
>  There's lots of alliances and so on that can be used. NATO has done a good
>  job of keeping the US and Western Europe on track. Anyway, what you want
>  is much more than a forum for criticism. You want some set of rules and
>  the means to enforce them. What is that besides a government?
                   

 In other words you want an alliance of states that agree with US
 foreign policy objectives, not a body of states commmitted to peace and
 democratic decision-making? Do you disagree with the principles of the 
 UN Charter?
               

>f > I only said that an international body is not a bad idea in terms of
>f > resolving international conflicts, if it is democratic.
>
>  What exactly are to be the mechanics of this democratic system? 
                                                               

Not that unlike the principles of the UN Charter, UN Human Rights statements.
Do you disagree with these?



>f > There are measures within the UN charter which recommend the solution of
>f > conflicts regionally and voluntarily by diplomacy first and then by UN
>f > means only after the former fail.
>
>  Of course, in places like ex-Yugoslavia, the diplomats are doing a fine
>  job of resolving the conflict, and thousands die while the UN vacillates.
>  There are advantages to having one country take on the job by itself.
           

 Which country would that be?                  


 But you again confuse the principles with the implementation.
 Perhaps you might propose here what you would do in former Yugoslavia.

 Frank