The beginning of the end of the UN

[Iggy]

In 1935 Ethiopia appealed to the League of Nations for assistance after attacked by a group of Italian-backed Somalis. The comedy that followed demonstrated that the League was impotent if a permanent member of the League so wanted it. Peter Wilson, for example, writes in League of Nations:

Previously the principal League members had dragged their feet when responding to Japanese aggression in Manchuria. They also proved divided on how to respond to Mussolini’s seizure of Abyssinia. Economic sanctions were imposed in the latter case, but half-heartedly. France, in particular, was not prepared to risk the alienation of Italy in light of its broader strategy of containing the rising power of Germany. For these reasons the name of the League quickly became associated with impotence.

Wikipedia likewise writes on the demise of the League:

The League's neutrality tended to manifest itself as indecision. It required a unanimous vote of nine, later fifteen, Council members to enact a resolution; hence, conclusive and effective action was difficult, if not impossible... unanimous voting had effectively given themselves veto power

League of Nations - General Weaknesses

Veto power gave any permanent member the ability to completely abrogate the function of the League of Nations. It wasn't lost on the British PM when it happened:

On 23 June 1936, in the wake of the collapse of League efforts to restrain Italy's war against Abyssinia, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin told the House of Commons that collective security had

...failed ultimately because of the reluctance of nearly all the nations in Europe to proceed to what I might call military sanctions ... The real reason, or the main reason, was that we discovered in the process of weeks that there was no country except the aggressor country which was ready for war ... f collective action is to be a reality and not merely a thing to be talked about, it means not only that every country is to be ready for war; but must be ready to go to war at once. That is a terrible thing, but it is an essential part of collective security.

Ultimately, Britain and France both abandoned the concept of collective security in favor of appeasement in the face of growing German militarism under Hitler.

 

Unfortunately, it looks like nations that could commit to collective security, are once again abandoning it, and the UN is slowly and predictably dying the same death of the League. The UK voted yesterday not to respond to Syria's crimes against humanity no matter how conclusive the evidence, or how vast the atrocity (no matter what inspectors report) unless Russia allows it (UN veto binds them).

So... the intentional slaughter of hundreds of civilian woman and children by nerve agent ends up not being something the international community can respond to if the war crime is backed by an obstructionist member of the security council. It is sad enough that the death of the League of Nations replays itself as the UN is infected with the same impotence, but the UN really does turn itself into an actively useful tool for countries to ratchet appeasement down on other nations as this death happens.

What a terrible way to go.

[CaptainPanic]

Who says that military intervention is going to save lives? Do we even know who we would be fighting against? Is it really too much to ask to wait a few days to at least establish what the hell has happened? 100,000 dead in over 2 years, and nobody gives a damn... but kill some children with gas instead of bombs, and everybody suddenly wakes up?

 

Sure, all the dead people is really an evil thing. (As is in (South-)Sudan, Mexico, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and Colombia)... and the photographs of these little kids was terrible. But I am not convinced that intervention will help at all.

 

The UN has intervened successfully in Mali, showing that it is indeed capable of reaching unanimous decisions.

[Iggy]

Who says that military intervention is going to save lives? Do we even know who we would be fighting against? Is it really too much to ask to wait a few days to at least establish what the hell has happened? 100,000 dead in over 2 years, and nobody gives a damn... but kill some children with gas instead of bombs, and everybody suddenly wakes up?

I certainly agree it's long overdue. It's awful what we've all allowed to happen there, and it didn't just start getting awful.

 

Of course, two years ago when some of us started saying "Syria really needs some help", everybody said that it wasn't that bad. Some of us said they would use chemical weapons, but... you know... that would have been a "preemptive strike".

 

Sure, all the dead people is really an evil thing. (As is in (South-)Sudan, Mexico, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and Colombia)... and the photographs of these little kids was terrible. But I am not convinced that intervention will help at all.

and the worse it gets, the less intervening will sound like it will help. Syria broke itself, and the worse the break gets, the less the international community is willing to do.

 

Like the British PM said in the '30s... for true collective security to work requires "not only that every country is to be ready for war; but must be ready to go to war at once". No single country can fix this problem, and we have given up on collective security.

 

The UN has intervened successfully in Mali, showing that it is indeed capable of reaching unanimous decisions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the UN. I wish it could do better than the worst of its collective members. I really do.

[Delbert]

Of course, two years ago when some of us started saying "Syria really needs some help", everybody said that it wasn't that bad. Some of us said they would use chemical weapons, but... you know... that would have been a "preemptive strike".

Exactly. Like that weed at the end of the garden, it's not much so I'll pull it out if it gets bigger. But six months later you've got a young tree that needs a spade. So, by the time you've bothered to go down shops and bought a spade...

 

A neighbour of mine has a bloody great eucalyptus tree with a trunk the same diameter as my waist (yes, it's that big), which I recall about two years ago was a nice little sapling!

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the UN. I wish it could do better than the worst of its collective members. I really do.

 

I think worst should read: those of a different view.

 

How does one resolve problems when there are those of a different view: introduce a simple majority voting system, mayhap? But I think we all know about things when the difference is one vote!

 

But even with a large majority what does one do. Send the offender to Coventry? Possibly with the result that ten or so years later the situation is still the same, if not worse.

 

Like all good ideas, it's what we do when the euphoria of a brave new world has died down and there's a problem. Sadly, at the end of the day it probably comes down to military action.

[CaptainPanic]

Americans seem in general a little upset with the fact that the UN does not always go their way. They totally forget that the USA use their veto quite often as well!

[Iggy]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the UN. I wish it could do better than the worst of its collective members. I really do.

I think worst should read: those of a different view.

 

I wish it could do more to get people on the same page, yes. Preferably a page that doesn't include indifference to crimes against humanity.

 

 

Like all good ideas, it's what we do when the euphoria of a brave new world has died down and there's a problem. Sadly, at the end of the day it probably comes down to military action.

Indeed. I remember the brave-new-world feeling after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Finally, we could all work together to accomplish anything! Of course, at 13 I was pretty naive.

 

---

 

 

Americans seem in general a little upset with the fact that the UN does not always go their way. They totally forget that the USA use their veto quite often as well!

I wouldn't presume to speak for most Americans, and I wouldn't trust a wikipedia section cited with nothing but six [citation needed]'s, but I am confident you missed my point.

 

I'm saying that the UN has become a tool that nations can use to obstruct the moral efforts of the international community. You say the US has a veto and you point to a wiki section which says that the US has blocked international efforts regarding the Israel / Palestine conflict. Certainly you're demonstrating my point... the UN is working against its own mandate.

 

 

I'm sure we should all read Kofi Annan's 1999 Report on Srebrenica to the general assembly, but it is 155 pages. Let me quote some things Kofi Annan said that really, really highlight the problem that the UN is displaying today (he figured it all out):

 

"Through error, misjudgment and an inability to recognize the scope of the evil confronting us, we failed to do our part to help save the people of Srebrenica from the Serb campaign of mass murder... No one laments more than we the failure of the international community to take decisive action to halt the suffering and end a war that had produced so many victims"

“a deliberate and systematic attempt to terrorize, expel or murder an entire people must be met decisively with all necessary means."

"...we tried to keep the peace... when there was no peace to keep"

"...pervasive ambivalence within the United Nations regarding the use of force in the pursuit of peace... prism of moral equivalency"

"Srebrenica crystallized a truth understood only too late by the United Nations and the world at large: that Bosnia was as much a moral cause as a military conflict. The tragedy of Srebrenica will haunt our history forever,"

"Rather than attempting to mobilize the international community to support the enclave’s defense, we gave the Security Council the impression that the situation was under control, and many of us believed that to be the case"

"The day before Srebrenica fell we reported that the Serbs were not attacking when they were. We reported that the Bosniaks had fired on an UNPROFOR blocking position when it was the Serbs. We failed to mention urgent requests for an air power... illustrative of a more general tendency to assume that the parties were equally responsible for the transgressions that occurred."

"Even in the most restrictive interpretation of the mandate, the use of close air support against attacking Serb targets was clearly warranted... We were, with hindsight, wrong to declare repeatedly and publicly that we did not want to use air power against the Serbs except as a last resort and to accept the shelling of the safe areas as a daily occurrence,”

"...an institutional ideology of impartiality even when confronted with attempted genocide..."

"the United Nations global commitment to ending conflict does not preclude moral judgments, but makes them necessary."

But, the UN, and even Kofi Annan himself, have already forgotten the lesson. On the 27th Annan said “I don't see a military intervention in Syria... Further militarization of the conflict, I'm not sure that is the way to help..."

 

One wonders if they've read their own "responsibility to protect" doctrine. When al Assad fails to protect his own people it becomes the international community's *responsibility* to do it. We don't have a choice. If Russia tries to stop us or not. By the UN's own charter... it is now our responsibility -- whatever it takes.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Iggy

[Delbert]

Perhaps we need a Gort.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Delbert

[Iggy]

Perhaps we need a Gort.

I thought of that, but al-Assad would just have to say "Gort, Klaatu barada nikto" and Gort's mission would be over. It'd never work

[Royston]

I'm saying that the UN has become a tool that nations can use to obstruct the moral efforts of the international community.

 

I'm not convinced this is the case, there are numerous ways that a government can curtail laws that hold for international laws, but not the UN...a humanitarian effort being one of them. Indeed, Britain's ex prime minister used humanitarian ideals to side step UN policy.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Royston

[Iggy]

I'm not convinced this is the case, there are numerous ways that a government can curtail laws that hold for international laws, but not the UN...a humanitarian effort being one of them. Indeed, Britain's ex prime minister used humanitarian ideals to side step UN policy.

 

And, the current PM again rightly made the point that the UK could intervene legally via Humanitarian Intervention without a UN resolution. But, the House of Commons did not authorize intervention because they were looking for a UN mandate. Hence: the UK is not going... not going because MPs were provided with a reason not to intervene by, what Kofi Annan called, "pervasive ambivalence within the United Nations regarding the use of force in the pursuit of peace".

 

Nevertheless, the very idea that nations have to sidestep the UN is the sort of thing I was talking about. It has become a hindrance.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Iggy

[Bill Angel]

If military action against Syria needs to involve support from an international organization, I should think that it could be supplied by NATO. Turkey is a member of NATO, and it is providing sanctuary for over 400,000 refugees from the conflict in Syria. Any further use of poison gas by the Syrian regime would only cause more people to flee that country to take up residence in the refugee camps, including those in Turkey.

[Delbert]

If military action against Syria needs to involve support from an international organization, I should think that it could be supplied by NATO. Turkey is a member of NATO, and it is providing sanctuary for over 400,000 refugees from the conflict in Syria. Any further use of poison gas by the Syrian regime would only cause more people to flee that country to take up residence in the refugee camps, including those in Turkey.

And I think the UK is also a member and has voted not to intervene. As for increased gas attacks if the west gets involved, what reason would they have to cease should the west stand back?

 

There are dangers whichever action is taken. We have a long standing agreement about chemical weapons, but like all agreements, what does one do if someone disregards such an agreement. If nothing, then the agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on - in other words it's the same as no agreement. And those so disposed will take advantage.

 

I thought of that, but al-Assad would just have to say "Gort, Klaatu barada nikto" and Gort's mission would be over. It'd never work

Yes, there's always the one little snag!

Edited September 2, 2013 by Delbert