Diplomacy and the UN

For UN related news, click here. 

On May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council lifted its sanctions on Iraq.  

League of Nations

What about our use of the UN in the run up to the current Iraq war?  There has been a lot of criticism that the UN is becoming as weak as the League of Nations was.  How bad was the League of Nations?  It is interesting to note what one old encyclopedia has to say about the League of Nations:

“The League of Nations suffered a fateful blow at the very outset when the United States refused to become a member.” 

 “The League’s chief success lay in providing the first pattern of permanent international organization, a pattern on which much of the UN was modeled.  Its failures were due as much to the hostility of the great powers, which preferred to reserve important matters for their own decisions, as to weaknesses of organization.” (Underline supplied)

(From the heading “League of Nations,” in the Columbia Encyclopedia, Third Edition, 1968, p. 1189.) 

The new great power -- the US  -- has recently acted towards the UN much as the old great powers acted toward the League of Nations.  Back then, the actions of these "great powers" led to the destruction of the League of Nations and the beginning of World War II. 

On the first page of The Gathering Storm, Winston Churchill states, "The British delegation at Versailles moulded and shaped his [President Wilson's] ideas into an instrument which will for ever constitute a milestone in the hard march of man."  Churchill doesn't make it sound like such a bad thing.  Churchill continues, later, "The League of Nations had no sooner been created than it received an almost mortal blow.  The United States abandoned President Wilson's offspring."  Further on (page 77), Churchill states:

If the influence of the United States had been exerted, it might have galvanized the French and British politicians into action.  The League of Nations, battered though it had been, was still an august instrument which would have invested any challenge to the new Hitler war-menace with the sanctions of international law.  Under the strain the Americans merely shrugged their shoulders, so that in a few years they had to pour out the blood and treasures of the New World to save themselves from mortal danger.

As the European situation deteriorated in 1935, Churchill continued to support action through the League of Nations.  On page 172, he writes:

[Minister for League of Nations Affairs] Eden's zeal and address and the principles which he proclaimed dominated the Assembly.  On September 11, the Foreign Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, having arrived at Geneva, addressed them:

I will begin by reaffirming the support of the League by the Government I represent and the interest of the British people in collective security....  The ideas enshrined in the Covenant and in particular the aspiration to establish the rule of law in international affairs have become a part of our national conscience.  It is to the principles of the League and not to any particular manifestation that the British nation has demonstrated its adherence....

In spite of my [Churchill's] anxieties about Germany and little as I liked the way our affairs were handled, I remember being stirred by this speech when I read it in Riviera sunshine.  It aroused everyone, and reverberated throughout the United States.  It united all those forces in Britain which stood for a fearless combination of righteousness and strength.  

Finally, in his chapter "Hitler Strikes" describing the situation in 1936, Churchill writes:

I still had the hope that the appeal which France had made to the League of Nations would result in bringing into being an international pressure upon Germany to carry out the decisions of the League.  

Churchill then quotes from something he had written on March 13, 1936:

...If the forces at the disposal of the League of Nations are four or five times a strong as those which the aggressor can as yet command, the chances of a peaceful and friendly solution are very good.  Therefore, every nation, great or small, should play its part according to the Covenant of the League.  

Upon what force can the League of Nations count at this cardinal moment?  Has she sheriffs and constables with whom to sustain her judgments, or is she left alone, impotent, a hollow mockery amid the lip-serving platitudes of irresolute or cynical devotees?  Strangely enough for the destiny of the world, there was never a moment or occasion when the League of Nations could command such overwhelming force.  The constabulary of the world is at hand.  On every side of Geneva stand great nations, armed and ready, whose interests as well as whose obligations bind them to uphold, and in the last resort enforce, the public law.  This may never come to pass again.  The fateful moment has arrived for choice between the New Age and the Old.  

He closes this section by stating: "There is no doubt that had His Majesty's Government chosen to act with firmness and resolve through the League of Nations, they could have led a united Britain forward on a final quest to avert war."  (My italics)

It's interesting that Winston Churchill, who led Britain through the perils of the most intense warfare in the history of man, thought that it would have been preferable to rely on international law administered by the League of Nations.  Before World War II, America disdained international law by abandoning the League of Nations, and does so again today by acting contrary to clearly expressed desires of the majority of the Security Council and United Nations' leadership.  Do those who disdain international law today understand the price they may have to pay? What happened to those visionaries who established the United Nations after World War II and the system of international law that has functioned for over fifty years?  Why has the United States rejected it now?  

US Vigilante Justice

Webster's New World Dictionary defines a "vigilante" as "any individual who acts outside of legal authority, often violently, to punish or avenge a crime, right a perceived wrong, etc."  (My italics)  Over the years, vigilantes have certainly punished many who deserved to be punished.  But for civilized society, the problem is that they acted outside of the law.  When the law does not operate well to punish criminals, those who are not well educated, decent people turn to lawless vigilantism, but decent, well educated people work to reform the legal system so that it works sufficiently well to satisfy society.  There will, however, always be people whose moral standards do not correspond with the majority of citizens and who will therefore resort to lynchings, assassinations, etc.  I certainly hope that the U.S. would not join this latter group.   

The 1991 Gulf War was based on UN resolutions and included troops from a number of other UN countries.  It was based on Security Council resolutions 660 (August 2, 1990), 661 (August 2, 1990), 665 (August 25, 1990), 670 (September 25, 1990), 678 (November 29, 1990), 687 (April 3, 1991), 700 (June 17, 1991), 707 (August 15, 1991), and 715 (October 11, 1991) among others.  On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait.  On August 7, 1990, Saudi Arabia requested U.S. assistance to defend against Iraq.  On December 17, 1990, when the U.S. gave Saddam Hussein until January 15, 1991, to leave Kuwait, Hussein rejected all UN resolutions.  On January 17, 1991, Desert Storm began.  Thus, the U.S. and its allies, including France, who supplied troops, ran through a string of UN resolutions, seeking to resolve the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait peacefully, but when this was unsuccessful, got an authorization (resolution 678) "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660...."  

In 2002 the US Government resisted taking its case to the UN Security Council until Secretary of State Powell apparently convinced President Bush that it was necessary for world opinion, contrary to the arguments of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, his deputies, and other hard liners.  While there has been a lot of criticism for taking our case to the UN, resolution 1441 has at least provided a fig leaf of legality for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  

Protection from War Crimes Prosecution

Although the Pentagon, led by Rumsfeld, has sharply criticized Powell for pursuing the UN route, resolution 1441 may be the primary protection for American soldiers and officials against prosecution for war crimes.  As much as the current Administration despises international law, it does exist and regulates the actions of nations.  Rumsfeld and his colleagues argue that might makes right, but there are problems without at least some claim to legitimacy under international law.  What if ten or twenty years from now, the then government of Iraq wants to avenge what it considers an illegal invasion.  What argument would the U.S. have against such a prosecution?  Primarily resolution 1441.  We could argue that Saddam was a cruel, evil dictator who deserved to die, but what if Iraq didn't see him that way twenty years from now?  Resolution 1441 gives us the weight of the international community against such a prosecution for war crimes.  It may not be enough, but it probably is.  Because it exists, we will probably never have to use it.  

The UN anticipated that an International Criminal Court created in 1998 in Rome would have jurisdiction over war crimes, but the U.S. has vehemently opposed the court because of fears that American troops could be tried for war crimes before it.  The Court statute received the necessary number of ratifications in 2002.  Although they signed the statute, the US and Israel have signed almost identical statements denying that the Court has any jurisdiction over them: 

In a communication received on 6 May 2002, the Government of the United States of America informed the Secretary-General of the following:

"This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."

and 

On 28 August 2002, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Israel, the following communication: ".....in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on 17 July 1998, [...] Israel does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, Israel has no legal obligations arising from its signature on 31 December 2000. Israel requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."

What this shows is that the United States and Israel are the odd men out with regard to punishment of war crimes.  Interestingly, Iraq also joined the U.S. in opposing the Court.  Unlike the U.S. and Israel, Iraq and Libya did not even sign the agreement, much less ratify it.  It will be interesting to see how America's opposition to the International Criminal Court will affect the way in which it tries Iraqis for war crimes which would otherwise be tried by the Court.  Officials of the former Yugoslavia are being tried for war crimes by a special court set up by the UN -- the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.  There is a similar special court for war crimes committed in Ruwanda.  Will the U.S. oppose creating a third special UN war crimes tribunal and seek some other legal forum?  

UN Food for Oil Resolution

In resolution 1472, the UN Security Council has stated its determination to remain involved in the food for oil operation and other humanitarian aspects of Iraq's future.  The U.S. has not unconditionally embraced a UN role, according to Colin Powell's discussions at NATO and news reports about differences between members of the Bush Administration, particularly between the State Department and the Defense Department.  In addition, there are legal questions about whether the U.S. would have the legal right to sell Iraqi oil, or whether the UN has legal title to the oil.