In the exchange I tried to explain to him that the binding resolutions of the UNSC ARE the closest thing we have to International Law and cited 1441 and its preceding resolutions upon which it was based (678 and 687).
So you've tossed out the Geneva, Vienna, NPT, GATT, NAFTA, the Law of the Sea, and other international treaties, et al, as international law. Call me liberal, but I think there are more than a couple of well spoken and intellectual folks that would disagree with you.
1441 was closer to a court order to comply than it is international law. The basis for the resolution was the violation of the treaty that Iraq had agreed to.
But 1441 did not specifically authorize military action. An assessment by the legal counsel to Tony Blair indicated that military action without a specific authorizing UN resolution would probably be illegal. I don't personally know the legal counsel to Tony Blair, but I'd guess that he is well spoken and intellectual. As such the US and UK prepared a separate draft UN resolution to specifically authorize military action against Iraq. Once they figured out that it wasn't going to pass they tabled it rather than withdraw it. A procedural manuever that precluded a vote on any other proposed UN resolution on the matter.
Referring the US to the War Crimes Tribunal is problematic. First, the US has not ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC. As I recall, neither did Iraq. The UN could refer the case to the War Crimes Tribunal but I suspect such a move would have to be approved by the UNSC. I'm going out on a limb here, I suspect the US and UK would veto such a resolution. Another country might be able to refer the case to the Tribunal, but who would do that and what difference would it make? I don't see Bush jumping on AF1 to defend himself in front of the Tribunal. It's far more likely that Bush would flip the finger and find some way of punishing the referring State economically if not militarily. Referring the US to the Tribunal would be analogous to approaching a street gang at 2:00 a.m. and doing a citizen's arrest.
His response was essentially that he felt the UN was not legitmate and had no right to issue such resolutions...
This, my friend, is the convoluted thinking that liberals bring to any discussion of Iraq...
Insufficient information to assess whether it's convoluted thinking.
But by god, when it comes to Israel and the series of non-binding resolutions aimed at conflict resolution and eventual last peace between that country and other hostile nations it remains at a state of war with, they're all over the place citing the UN's authority.
You haven't actually indicated whether the individual you were corresponding with actually made the claim. Without further elaboration on your part, it seems to me that you've grabbed the opinion of one person, the opinion of another person and lumped them together under the umbrella label of "liberal". I could just as easily find some quotes from conservatives that deny the authority of the UN [at least when it comes to the US] and assert convoluted thinking. Though I would more likely use the word "hypocritical".
Clicking back to see the background for your post if found this : Why do we grant legitimacy to governments that are not elected by their people? And why do we permit such non-democratic regimes to participate in democratic international governmental organizations?
ROTFLOL. Look at the UN Charter. The UN was set up as a world body to prevent/resolve conflict. If you believe George Bush: then a world body of democratic countries would be pointless as democratic countries don't attack each other.
Additionally, I see many a conservative claim that the countries that primarily fund the UN should be able to dictate what the UN does. I personally don't think that's a democratic principle. And I certainly don't see the US propose that Japan get a permanent member seat to the UNSC. Japan puts in a good chunk of change into the UN and they have no more power in the UN than does Rwanda. Permanent members to the UNSC have quite a bit of power by virtue of their veto power. Which the US uses readily to shield Israel from binding UN resolutions.
I'm not terribly worried about that inconsistency. When China's GNP grows sufficiently that they are putting in more money into the UN than the US, the conservatives will abandon the notion and forget they ever had that position.
Further, haven't you noticed the US doesn't care whether a country is democratic. We punish the Palestinians for voting for Hamas. [Aside: Another sterling example of US intelligence capabilities. We couldn't even guess that it was possible that Hamas would win an election.] We aren't terribly fond of the democratically elected President Chavez. On the other hand the UAE and Saudi Arabia are just fine and dandy. On the other hand the President of Iran is democratically elected. Perhaps you would propose that Venuzuela and Iran stay in the UN and the UAE and Saudi Arbabia get booted out? LOL.
It's no wonder you're a "conservative".
jttmab |
