UN Security Council, General Assembly United for Peace Loophole!

March 15, 2003

[Indy Pendance]

America Responds to Terrorism

In another instance, the United States and Soviet Union teamed up to thwart two Western powers--France and Great Britain. In July 1956, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser seized the Suez Canal. Although the canal ran through Egyptian territory, it was owned primarily by the British and French. To get the canal back, Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt. Most of the world opposed the retaking of the canal. The United States and Soviet Union, in a rare case of Cold War unity, voted for a Security Council resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of British, French, and Israeli troops. But Britain and France vetoed this resolution.

The United States then took the unusual step of submitting the withdrawal resolution to the General Assembly where every U.N. member had one vote and no country had the veto power. The resolution passed overwhelmingly. An armed U.N. peacekeeping force, the "Blue Helmets" (peacekeeper helmets have the same color as the U.N. flag), was put together with troops contributed by a number of U.N. member nations. Faced with such massive international opposition, the British, French, and Israelis withdrew their forces from the canal.

A U.N. Alternative to War: “Uniting for Peace”

In the last few months, the Bush Administration has been unyielding in its march towards war, over the objections of some allies and despite the efforts of the United Nations. In response to France’s threat that it would veto efforts by the United States to obtain a U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, President Bush said the United States would lead a “coalition of the willing to disarm Saddam Hussein.” Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that the United States and Britain reserved the right to use force against Iraq--- even if a Security Council member vetoed a resolution authorizing the use of force. It now seems obvious that the United States, with some other countries, may soon go to war despite a veto; or, alternatively, go to war without returning to the Security Council and risking a veto. But for people around the world terrified that a new war in Iraq is inevitable, there may yet be hope. And that hope lies in a little-discussed mechanism of the United Nations itself—which, although it seems marginalized by American power, has the potential to stop the war.

The Charter gives the Security Council “the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” But the Security Council is currently unable to carry out this responsibility in light of U.S. plans to attack Iraq. The Council is stymied: The United States may bypass the Council entirely. And, if the Council tries to obtain passage of a resolution prohibiting the United States from using unauthorized force against Iraq, the United States or Britain will surely veto it.

Long ago, the members of the United Nations recognized that such impasses would occur in the Security Council. They set up a procedure for insuring that such stalemates would not prevent the United Nations from carrying out its mission to “maintain international peace and security.” In 1950, the United Nations by an almost unanimous vote adopted Resolution 377, the wonderfully named “Uniting for Peace.” The United States played an important role in that resolutions adoption, concerned about the possibilities of vetoes by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Uniting for Peace provides that if, because of the lack of unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council (France, China, Russia, Britain, United States), the Council cannot maintain international peace where there is a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression,” the General Assembly “shall consider the matter immediately….” The General Assembly can meet within 24 hours to consider such a matter, and can recommend collective measures to U.N. members including the use of armed forces to “maintain or restore international peace and security.”

---

References:

Uniting for Peace: Using UN General Assembly Resolution 377

[longtermmemmory]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865540/posts

Similar thread with the same issue.

An american law professor's has been researching UN action against the USA.

[Indy Pendance]

You mean this little old engineer found this out by myself all the while the lawyers were on it? Dang.

[TLBSHOW]

While in other News? George W. Bush tells the UN to get Lost?

[George W. Bush]

This is why we can't go for a vetoed resolution, contrary to everyone here who demands a vote.

We can't throw it to the General Assembly. And we need to attack so quickly that the General Assembly can't meet to condemn us before we're fully committed.

There's good reason to believe that they won't get more than half the vote anyway. No way they'll get a unanimous vote out of the General Assembly.

[ARCADIA]

The UN is history as of monday. They can do whatever they want, condemn us, get drunk, go to the beach, plan a fairwell party; who cares?

[Indy Pendance]

If the security council is at an impass, I'm under the impression the general assembly makes a decision. Making the security council veto's irrevelant.

[Indy Pendance]

I can understand the need for the UN, not in is current overblown capacity, but as strictly a diplomatic liaison. The UN is trying hard to become the leaders of the one world government. Right now, the US is fighting that, along with Britian, Australia, Spain and a couple other nations, although no press is willing to state it. We see the destruction and the potential for a dictatorship ruler of the world, these others are in for the instant gratification. That is why we are seeing such a diplomatic breakdown. The EU wants world government, the democratic societies are fighting it.

[Mihalis]

I agree. The UN should have been history many years ago. It's controlled by a majority of totalitarian regimes and it can't be allowed to influence global affairs. The fact that Libya is now in charge of human rights speaks for itself. The decision to play the UN's game in this current crisis was a bad one. We should withdraw our financial backing of the UN and push for a new Organization of Democratic Nations.

[doug from upland]

This is almost beginning to be comical. Some actually think they are going to keep the U.S. from freeing the people of Iraq. Hello out there. We don't give a damn what you say or how long you march in the street. "No blood for oil" is foolish. Keep marching, idiots. You can tell your grandkids are you failed to stop a real commander in chief who knows his duty to this nation and to humanity.

[George W. Bush]

They can do whatever they want, condemn us, get drunk, go to the beach, plan a fairwell party; who cares?

Britain, Spain, Poland, Bulgaria, the rest of the Coalition of the Willing.

Bush vetoed the International Criminal Court. But all the others are under its jurisdiction. So if the U.N. condemns the action, there is a legal basis to pursure the leaders of our allies as war criminals. Actually, they could pursue any military commanders or soldiers or members of their governments like defense ministers as well.

This is what all of us anti-globalists have ranted about for years. I think France may be considering to try to play that card and enable the Lilliputians to finally tie Gulliver down.

At this point, I'm actually more concerned about dismantling the U.N. than I am about deposing Saddam. The United Natons is the greater threat to America.

[George W. Bush]

If America and Spain and Britain and Bulgaria just refuse to show up for a Security Council meeting, can they meet and vote anyway?

I think we should stay home rather than meet and risk diplomatic mischief at this point. I learned a long time ago that sometimes the only way to beat the liberals is by not showing up to give them a legal quorum so they can enact their agenda. Also, it's good to get up and walk out if you know that you can't win a vote if by leaving they will lose a legal quorum and have to dismiss.

I wonder what a legal quorum of the Security Council is?

[Indy Pendance]

OK, I keep posting this, but it is so revelant.

I'm confident the American people understand that when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so ... when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission.

- George W Bush, March 6, 2003

[Indy Pendance]

My understanding is, if there is a veto of the security council, the general assembly can take it up and vote within 24 hours.

[tbpiper]

So what if those members of the Coalition of the Willing go along with our 'unilateral'war. Who's the World Court goning to send to arrest them? France?

[doug from upland]

I put that right up there with "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," and "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Those a little more noble than "I never had sex with that woman.................Ms. Lewinsky."

[newgeezer]

The General Assembly can ... recommend collective measures to U.N. members including the use of armed forces to “maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Hmm... that would make matters interesting, wouldn't it.

[Bulldogs22]

I'm confident the American people understand that when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so ... when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission.
- George W Bush, March 6, 2003


It better be this. Stock up on ammo just in case.

[Indy Pendance]

Yes, my impression is this whole security council is a mute point. There are overriding factors that are not being shared with the people that are critical. And those in the media know this!