Evidence for why Bolton should not be confimed

Schraf, What was it, in the order of 16-18 Chapter Seven resolutions over Iraq passed unanimously post 1991? When it comes to backing up those resolutions, not a backbone to be seen anywhere.Why shouldn't it be treated with the contempt it deserves?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Hi Schraf, The UN as it stands is as useful in the same way as a charity, it serves as a pool of resources when someone wants it to. Sometimes. But it just has no teeth to do what it needs to do. In the case of Iraq, it couldn't even back up it's own resolutions.This is serious. What's the point in having an organisation that claims to be the United Nations, & its members directly oppose what they had unanimously implicated themselves with? This isn't a pro/anti Iraq war rant, but why were states voting in favour of resolutions that were implicitly backed by the use of force if they were so against the use of force? What were they thinking? Didn't it occur to someone that they shouldn't be talking the talk if they weren't prepared to walk the walk? What's wrong with a resolution under a different chapter that doesn't threaten force if the resolution is breached?I'm no fan of George Dubya I assure you, but I think he has a legitimate reason to doubt the UN's credibility. What better place to put Bolton out of harms way and at the same time make a point, from Bush's point of view, of course. How can the UN make it difficult for the US? The US pulls out & is richer as a result. The US no longer has to go through the irksome process of getting people to back up resolutions they voted for? That'll teach 'em . Clearly Bolton is a dick, but putting someone who is anti-UN in the UN isn't going to bring the UN down. Maybe he should run for president in four years, that might bring it down . It is, as you say, GWB saying "fuck you". And why not? A sandpit of intransigent hypocrites deserves all that it gets. Now, having had GWB's middle finger extended in it's general direction, the UN can get on with all the other "useful" things that it gets up to.The UN will live on, it won't learn, but it will live on. It will even occasionally do wonderful & necessary things. It could be so much more.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Hi Schraf, That's my point. For reasons that I have pointed out, Bolton is being appointed to a forum that Bush sees, with some justification, as being politically irrelevant. The point being that the pain should have been spread around a bit, & Bush wouldn't have been acting unilaterally if the UN members that voted on the various Chapter 7 resolutions weren't just guffing hot air when they did.Bush has every reason to think the UN isn't worth real consideration when appointing an ambassador to it.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-17-2005 04:49 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Hi Holmes,My position is that when a resolution is passed that has the use of force as an implicit threat of non-compliance, then force should be used when non-compliance occurs. That the UN failed to do this is why Bush is snubbing the UN by nominating Bolton.The debate as to whether or not force should be used should to guarantee the resolutions should have been had when the UN decided to use Chapter Seven resolutions, rather than a lesser Chapters resolution, not when non-compliance occurred.Why was the UN opposing the use of force for non-compliance when it passed Chapter Seven resolutions? Force should be a last resort, but a decades worth of sporadic, systematic non-compliance with no hint that the situation was going to change warrants the use of force under the resolutions IMHO. If the UN were prepared to use force, like they implied they would, when exactly? Twenty years? Thirty? Clearly Iraq was in breach & the UN should have had the courage to do what it threatened, or it had no business passing those resolutions as they did within the UN's own framework in the first place.But they did, & they did fuck all about it when push came to shove.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Schrafinator, That's neither here nor there. My point specifically relates to the UN failure to support its own resolutions.France voted for chapter 7 resolutions & the implicit use of force when Iraq defaulted on any given resolution, that's the point of a chapter 7 resolution after all. What did they know that you don't? Or perhaps they shouldn't be passing chapter 7 resolutions with gay abandon when they have no intention of supporting them?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Hi Holmes, Why? This rather illustrates my point, rather than detracts from it. My complaint is that there are separate utilities available to render sanctions with & without the threat of force. If a sanction is made with the threat of force, then that threat should be carried out if the resolution is not met or is defaulted upon. Of course, things change that may make the original resolution a full or partial anachronism, but that is not the case here. Given that the resolution was defaulted upon, then the threat of force should be carried out. Nothing has changed to make the resolution moot, the voting members have no valid reason to deviate from their stated resolution, it should be carried out. So why the hand wringing? Why are the members not saying, enough is enough? Given that they had absolutely no intention of following through with their threat, or more accurately, bluff, then they had no business threatening force in the first place.The resolutions against Iraq should have been forcefully debated by the dissenting nations to have been chapter 6, not chapter 7 resolutions at the time. Given that France et al had, in retrospect, no willingness to engage in force against Iraq after it defaulted, it had no business arguing against the use of force after it had implicitly sanctioned it. The debate should have taken place at the time of the resolution, not when war was imminent.Let me make this clear, the difference between a chapter 7 resolution & any other resolution is that the use of force to resolve the issue is implied. That a further resolution is necessary is neither here nor there. The only reason a no force verdict should be returned on the second resolution is if the situation has meaningfully changed. It hadn’t, so a second resolution to use force should have flown through. Nothing had changed re. weapons inspectors etc. the rationale that lead anyone to sanction a chapter 7 resolution should compel them to sanction the consequences of a defaulted chapter 7 resolution, not come to a diametrically opposite conclusion. France et al had no intention of walking the walk in the first instance. No he wasn’t. That was the point. Agreeing to allow inspectors into a region 3 months after they turn up at the gates defeats the point of inspections that can catch him out; he defaulted anyway, many times; therefore the threat of force didn't work. Why not send him an itinerary & be done with it?But this raises a second point. Do you think the UN should bluff, & have its credibility & integrity damaged when the bluff is called? The threat of force hadn’t worked at all. Saddam never stopped being a brinksman. There was nowhere else to go regarding the C7 resolutions. The inspectors were continually prevented from gaining access as per the resolution, in spite of the threat force.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Holmes,Sorry about the wait, been a busy week. It is not counterfactual, Iraq defaulted on resolutions right up to the end (weapons inspector access).If (for example) WI access is so serious that it warrants a chapter seven resolution that implies the use of force in its support, then why wouldn’t force be used after a decades worth of sporadic, systematic non-compliance? Nothing has changed, the rationale in 02/3 is as good as in ’91. They were serious enough about it to threaten force at the time, shouldn’t the threat have been realised when the specific points of the resolution were defaulted upon? If not, why not?They were bluffing, obviously. It would have been nice to have let the US/UK coalition know this, don’t you think? If diplomacy is meant to avert war, why threaten it? This seems hypocritical. You have it about face, the UN acted within the spirit of the UN resolutions, everyone else bucked their responsibility. At the very least, my statement is as valid as yours. Hang on a second, on one hand you are telling me I am nave in not understanding how diplomacy works, on the other hand I’m calling people hypocrites when they say one thing & do another? You can’t have it both ways. Either they ARE bluffing & deserve the title, or they are not. They don’t become non-bluffers just because others do the same in the name of realpolitik. Again, what has changed with the situation regarding weapons inspectors from ’91 to 02? Nada. The reason for using force in ‘95 is as good as in ‘03. The arguments against the use of force should have been made before a chapter 7 resolution took place, or at the very least a nation shouldn’t be voting for the thing if it is a chapter 7 resolution & they have no intention of supporting it. Yet this never happened, & they did vote for it. Iraq defaulted time & again up to ’03. No-one wanted to do what they implied they would.That they were right is irrelevant. The resolution threatened force if the inspectors were not given unfettered access, which they weren’t. Whether there were WMD’s present is neither here nor there. So that bit about backing it up with force was a bluff, then? There really is no reason to threaten force if you are not going to use it if you aren’t bluffing. Make a chapter seven resolution that threatens force if it is defaulted upon, then resolutely refuse to use it. The means justifies the end? How am I using an ad hominem by pointing out the truth that they were bluffing? Unfortunately, in the future the threat of UN force is going most likely cause a split side from all the belly laughing. Potentially hundreds of thousands, millions even, may die because of the impotent ambiguity of previous UN threats/resolutions. It is demonstrably accurate, Iraq refused point blank to allow UN inspectors access to presidential palaces (for example), then later allowed them in. Time & again UN inspectors were left hanging around at the gates of sites after being denied entry.That he dragged his feet & obfuscated is a default on a UN resolution that requires total & immediate compliance. You have an extremely non-quotidian definition of success, if you think the threat of force resulted in Saddam towing the line regarding UN resolutions. A decade after they were written he still flouted them. What would a failure entail, one wonders? I never said he was hiding anything, I did imply he was in defiance of UN resolutions, however. I am being steadfast with evidence. Saddam was in defiance of UN resolutions a decade after they came into force. The UN threatened force as a result of non-compliance & failed to actualise it.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Contracycle, If I give you two apples, a red one & a green one, & say I might shoot you if you bite the red one, but not the green one, then I am threatening force. This is what a chapter seven resolution does relative to a non-chapter 7 resolution.The UN could have made a c6 resolution, which lacked the menace of potential military action. Instead, it chose to resolve under c7, which does allow the use of force to resolve the issue. Given that operationally, the only meaningful difference between the c7 & other resolutions is the use of force, it is implicitly threatened as a measure for non-compliance.Saddam was most definitely not in compliance. There is more to the UN with respect to Iraq than resolution 1441. Weapon inspection teams were set up under resolution 687, taken in 3rd April 1991, & were a part of the ceasefire agreement. In that document Iraq was to allow immediate on-site inspection of any locations required by the special commission. This is failed to do on many occasions. Iraq was therefore in breach, & most definitely not in compliance.Given a decade had passed & Iraq was still non-compliant, & peaceful means had failed to realise the desired effect, then the resolution should have used force, or it had no right being a c7 resolution in the first place.I am not making a pro-war argument, but an argument that c7 UN resolutions are ambiguous & lose their political & diplomatic value as a result of not fully realising themselves when peaceful means are realistically exhausted. The lesson is to not explicitly or implicitly threaten force if you are not going to use it, because the deterrent value of future resolutions will be weakened as a result.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Holmes,Our differences seem to rest on your belief that bluffing is a morally correct modus operandi in diplomacy. Bluffing is deliberately perpetrating a falsehood, & is lying. I cannot agree that a global political machine that is going to have integrity & garner respect, which it must have if it is able to work, can act in this way. There have been three counts of military action against Iraq post-’91, all in support of chapter seven resolutions passed unanimously by the UN. Only one of those counts involved unlimited invasion, the others were limited air campaigns. France et al were nowhere to be seen in any of them. Please don’t delude yourself that France had any intention of taking any form of limited action whatsoever in lieu of invasion.Talk is cheap in the UN. Saying Bush rushed to war is counterfactual & nave. Resolution 687 was 12 years old when Iraq was reinvaded. And saying Bush didn’t show an inadequacy in the UN is also counterfactual & nave. That members of the UN bluffed & were called on this, is an inadequacy. Bluffing is lying. Or is lying adequate, these days?MarkP.S. Why do you keep mentioning vetoes? Resolution 687 was passed unanimously. I fail to see what the veto has to do with rebutting my argument where no vetoes were involved.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Crash, Holmes said Bush "rushed" to war. 12 Years does not constitute a rush.The rest of your post has nothing to do with my argument.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

berberry, So the UN are full of shit for threatening crap when they have no intention of supporting their resolutions, aren't they?You make my point for me.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Crashfrog, Why make resolutions, then?The context of the conversation Holmes & I are having is within the context of the UN resolutions, & 12 years after is not a rush. Clinton invading Iraq months after the first violation might consitute a rush, but Bush years after doesn't.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

berberry, Nonsense, there is the rest of the world, it is the United Nations, not the United States. There is France, Italy, Russia, UK, Germany, Spain, India, China, Argentina, Brazil, etc. etc. ad nauseum. If you are going to argue with comments I've made, at least do me the honour of getting the context correct. The UN had resolutions that threatened force, & that after 12 years there were still member states that had no intention of going to war despite their cheap talk.The point I am making is that you shouldn't threaten force unless you are going to deliver. I am not making a pro-war argument. Please understand the distinction.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Crashfrog, Have it your way, if Bush rushed to war he wouldn't have waited 3 years into his term before doing it, would he?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't