Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stormweaver who wrote (6991)	5/6/1999 6:48:00 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

<<If you look at what's happening now we are working with the Russians for a diplomatic solution suggesting that we should have went through the U.N. process to begin with. On the contrary it was ludicrous for us to act without U.N. Security council backing. By acting in violation of these doctrines we threaten world peace since then their truly is no world order other than what an over-grown ignorant super-power like the U.S. dictates.>> Yes we are working with the Russians now to reach a solution, just as everyone clamors to the UNSC after the fact in order to bring about the semblence of an independent ruling and hence, save face. No we should not have gone to the UNSC if we really wanted to act, because any action would have been vetoed there by Russia and China for political reasons alone. You severely mistake the role the UNSC has played in world affairs over the past 50 years. The UNSC has acted as the front for world power politics and provides an avenue for resolving issues in the name of independent judgement where national pride dictates a graceful way out. The fact that the world powers are the UNSC should point the absurdity of the institution itself. The UNSC is a means for the world powers to come to agreements without expressly putting their names on the judgement, the politics can safely be done behind the facade of the UN. I hear a lot about this NATO action being the unimaginable breach of the inviolate UN Charter, as if we had done something unspeakable and our actions alone now have destroyed the peaceful authority of the UNSC at validating the use of force. That is simply preposterous. In the 50 years of its existence, I can think of only two full blown conflicts that have been authorized by the UNSC: Korea and the Gulf War. In all the myriad wars of the late 20th century, only two have been authorized by this august body, which has a monopoly on the authorization of force? And NATO has allegedly singlehandedly destroyed the legitimacy of this institution? That is a spurious claim to say the least. Lets see: Did the Soviets have permission when they crushed Prague? Did the Soviets have permission when they invaded Afghanistan? Did China and the Soviets have permission to enter into the conflict in Korea? Did India and Pakistan have permission to wage war against each other in any of their petty squabbles? Did the Arabs have permission to invade Israel in any of the three Arab/Israeli conflicts? Did China have permission to bomb and prepare for the invasion of the islands in the Formosa Straits? Did Vietnam have permission to invade Cambodia? Did Ethiopia or Eritrea have permission to wage war against each other? Did Argentina have permission to invade the Falklands? Did Britain have the express permission of the UNSC to counter-invade the Falklands? Did any party have permission in any of the countless petty African and S. American wars of the 20th century? You see James, all the rhetoric aside, getting UNSC authorization for the use of force is not the norm, precisely the opposite. In light of the facts, the dubiuous claim that NATO actions in Kosovo will spark a rash of unauthorized conflicts is simply ignorant. The fact is and will remain that the UN Charter is a tragic hollow document.