Attacking another soverign country just because their way of life is not ideal according to your country's prevailing way of life goes well beyond the justified use of force specified in Article 51 of the U.S. Charter, which says a country facing armed attack, such as Kuwait in 1990, is entitled to fight in self-defense, and that other countries may assist due to the "collective self-defense" clause. But barring this scenario, legal use of military force is vested only in the U.N. Security Council, which may take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Otherwise, the use of military force is prohibited under international law.
The United Nations' Charter. An interesting document rising up out of the aftermath of WW2, - a war against totalitarianism.
Let's look at it in the light of our discussion.
It states its Purposes in the first four clauses of Article 1.
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
Given WW2 had just finished, this is reasonable. Given what Iraq tried to do to Kuwait it appears to be reasonable. Note it is prospective: "for the prevention...of threats to the peace"
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Given what had happened recently - the German and Japanese attempt to enslave much of Europe and the far East and the enormous war rising from that - seems reasonable.
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and...
Given the recent history of unprecedented brutality, genocide, and nationally promoted inequality as seen in the German epitome of it, a very good clause indeed.
A clause quite applicable to the situation in Iraq with it's applied policy of mass murder and persecution of Kurds and Shiites.
Indeed the UN Security Council has passed resolutions telling Iraq to stop doing these things.
(So, it would appear the Purposes set forth here are in harmony with my country's "prevailing way of life.")
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
A worthy aspiration. Ambitious and at the same time modest - it doesn't claim universality and it shouldn't because it is not very good at establishing this "harmony."
In Article 2 the Principles to be followed in attaining the Purposes are
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
OK. Given what had been done to the sovreignty of several nations the previous years this was definitely on the minds of the folk writing the charter. And, in any case, who's going to join if they're going to be perhaps relegated to unequal status? The problem, of course, is that countries, like people, are unequal, both in powers and responsibilities and even ethical qualities. An effort to overcome this was partially successful with establishment of Security Council.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
In other words, if you want to remain in good standing, don't cheat. And more important, support the organization's Purposes and Principles in deeds.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
This is problematic because peace, security, and justice are not always compatible. Nonetheless, a good priniciple.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
So it's the Purposes of the UN which are paramount. But there is a great deal more to it than that. Cambodia was not made part of Vietnam after the invasion to destroy Pol Pot's regime. After the allied invasion of Italy and Egypt during WW2 they were not made parts of one of the invading countries, or colonized. The three cases I mention, either before or after establishment of the UN were definitely supportive of its Purposes. On the other hand the countries of Eastern Europe were colonized by the Russians and their citizens sent to the gulags. Something not at all supportive of the UN's Purposes..
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
If (eg) the UN Security Council passes a motion placing sanctions on some nation, the members of the UN shall support the sanctions and refrain from violating the sanctions.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Here the UN Charter moves beyond application of its Purposes and Principles not only to its members, but also to non-member countries.
This is significant because it amplifies the phrase in Section 1 of Purposes: "...to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace...." So the UN declared itself the world's policeman. However, it excused itself from dealing with messy domestic disputes:
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
Looked at from the distance of half a century part of this Article 2 Section 7 is scandalizing, to say the least. WW2 was fought on the basis of resisting German and Japanese totalitarianism. The creation of the UN is a direct result of the war against totalitarianism. The internal development of Germany demanded Britain and France go to war against it but the UN today is impeded from interferring in similar developments.
But this was the best the framers of the UN Charter could achieve, given one of the signatories and necessarily a member of the Security Council, Russia, a totalitarian regime which had gained an empire from the war, had absolutely no interest in human rights, had murdered millions of its own subject citizens, and was busily expanding its gulag archipelago. Russia and its imperial Soviet dependencies could vote as a block..
The United Nations is for nations, it's not for people. I understand this.
Thus the UN is an unsatisfactory vehicle for solving the problem of an incubating war, is crippled with respect to interferring in the incubation of further totalitarian regimes, and it is unsatisfactory for enforcing or even promoting the human rights so grandly mentioned in its Purposes. The best phrase the writers could slip in was " to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace." And of course Article 2 Section 4 was definitely open to interpretation but not with the presence of the Soviets and not now - the taboo is now shouted endlessly by the despots and spokesmen of various failed regimes.
Now about international law you write:
...legal use of military force is vested only in the U.N. Security Council, which may take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Otherwise, the use of military force is prohibited under international law.
First, with respect to Iraq. The Security Council negotiated the surrender of Iraq with conditions. Iraq has never complied with those conditions. It has avoided and defied the conditions. These are facts.
The US has repeatedly brought this matter to the UN Security Council which has ducked either having its own conditions met, or cancelling them. The UN and the Security Council have lost credibility both with the US and Iraq (and other countries).
A. If under law you impose a settlement then it must be enforced. This is a principle of justice both domestically and internationally.
B. If there is no enforcement then your settlement is meaningless.
C. If your court, (and the UN Security Council has taken upon itself the stature of a court), often makes unenforced settlements then folk will disregard them and they will stop coming to your court with their disputes.
D. If your court will not entertain hearing or making decisions about some disputes or injustices, then parties will find other avenues for resolution.
E. If parties in pursuing their disputes violate the jurisdiction of your court, and if your court does not have the practice of enforcing its decisions, then parties will disregard your court's jurisdiction.
F. If you pass laws your court can not, or will not enforce, (the UN has taken upon itself the role of legislator, court and enforcer), then you will be disregarded.
Item D. above is pertinent to our discussion. In the context of the UN Charter people crushed under totalitarian regimes can not appeal to the UN for help. And indeed, it was not the UN, but the US and its allies, which at incalculable cost, huge loss of democratic credentials and vast misery and injustice in Africa, S America and Asia, contained the totalitarian Soviet regime until it collapsed. During that whole time the Soviet regime was a threat to the peace but it was too large to remove directly. The Soviets were contained by the allies getting right up to its borders with armies and threatening serious damage with WMDs and by fighting Soviet proxies world wide and in the end by destroying the Soviet economy simply by compelling it to spend on defense until it went broke. The containmet was incredibly wasteful not just of lives but of whole countries and their development, and had there been some other way the west would have pursued it. Totalitarian regimes are always a threat to the peace because they are expansionary and so it had to be done.
The citizens of totalitarian regimes always undergo great oppression and terror, their futures are on hold, their countries' development retarded or even reversed, but the UN will not help The fact the UN will not help, is unwilling and and apparently (only apparently) incapable of helping, does not discredit either the ethics or legality of indirectly or directly helping Iraqi citizens escape tyranny. Vast injustice on the scale of a nation shouldn't get a free pass because the organization which appointed itself the arbiter of international justice, and which was captured by despots at the start of its career, won't get involved..
The UN will die - deservedly - if it does not confront totalitarianism, and international justice is discredited all the while the UN evades the challenge. |
