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

[Indy Pendance]

And even the patron saint Kennedy: "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."

[George W. Bush]

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?

Good point.

Actually, I'm hoping that all this ends up dismantling or neutering the powers of the U.N. and the I.C.C. We've done it before with the League of Nations and the hemispheric organizations and courts so it's not without precedent. Some of those institutions we were members of and destroyed them from inside.

Unfortunately, I'm don't think Powell is trying to do that. Hopefully, Cheney and Rumsfeld will get W. to do the right thing: spay and neuter the U.N. and the I.C.C.

[Indy Pendance]

I missed your post earlier. You nailed it. This is more about the continuation of the UN with respect to Iraq and whether or not the UN is a 'player'. Iraq does harbour terrorists that are directly linked to 9-11. Mute point. The bigger issue is the fight now for a one world government, which the press is so unwilling to report on. This is a battle for our constitution, we embrace life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Bush knows this. While are troops are assembling, we can play the diplomat game, but when it's said and done, the US will prevail. Unlike France, Germany, Britian, and a host of other European nations, the US doesn't want to rule other nations, we want to keep our constitution, our country, our way of life. It's the extremeists who want to destroy our country. Unless we rid this current cancer on society, it will fester, in this instance, it's islamic fundamentalists. That's our goal, if we don't prevail now, we lose our country.

[Indy Pendance]

Again, if this entire diplomatic process fails, it really doesn't matter. What matters is the US and our constitution. We don't need the UN or anyone else to determine the fate of our country. If the US fails, we fail because we weren't meant to be a country, the 200 year experiment will have failed. But do you really believe in your heart we will? There are at least 100 million people who will die for our country instead of being forced to pray to the east or wear burqas (OK I made that stat up, but I'll bet I'm not too far off). Free people have a passion, an aura, for a country that enables them to live. A country that oppresses it's citizens is a failure. When was the last time you heard of the people uprising for But, I doubt it. God has blessed this nation. We have a force more powerful than any weapon, and we will prevail!

[Carry_Okie]

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

Yep, the trap has been set. Powell deserves to hang.

Here is a dossier on the creep lawyer who is pushing this:

Information on Michael Ratner, President of The Center for Constitutional Rights
The CCR Website.

Their motto: Creative Lawyering for Social Justice.

Their mission: CCR uses litigation proactively to advance the law in a positive direction, to guarantee the rights of those with the fewest protections and least access to legal resources.

Mr. RATner is ALSO... General Partner of RATNER, DICAPRIO & CHOMSKY, LLP!!!

ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE BORN FREE
 AND EQUAL IN DIGNITY AND RIGHTS
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

MICHAEL RATNER, ANTHONY DICAPRIO
& JUDITH BROWN CHOMSKY

TAKE PLEASURE IN ANNOUNCING
THE FORMATION OF

RATNER, DICAPRIO
& CHOMSKY, LLP

A LAW FIRM DEDICATED TO
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND
INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTC
HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION

MICHAEL STEVEN SMITH WILL
JOIN THE FIRM OF COUNSEL

RATNER, DICAPRIO & CHOMSKY, LLP
80 EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 711,
NEW YORK, NY 10011
PHONE (212) 604 9466
FACSIMILE (212) 604 9467

Judith Brown Chomsky is Noam Chomsky's sister-in- law.
What a souprise.... NOT!
Garden Variety leftists, likely to be communists of the International Front.

Perhaps you folks would like to give Mr. RATner a call and let him know how much you appreciate all he's doing for your Constitutional rights?

[MississippiMan]

I think we should stay home rather than meet and risk diplomatic mischief at this point.

I think we should've never put ourselves in this position to start with, should have never hinted in any form or fashion that we required someone's permission to look out for the national security of the U.S. Since we did get in it, however, the danger now in not having the vote has nothing to do with the U.N. It has to do with Bush having made such a forceful (a la read-my-lips) statement about how he WOULD have the vote come hell or high water. If there is now no vote, the press and the liberals will hammer him about the flip-flop without mercy from now until the election. It doesn't matter that the point is moot anyway. The cry of like-father-like-son will be yelled incessantly. You watch.

MM

[Amerigomag]

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

And a new member is initiated into the Understanding The United Nations Fandance club.

The door to insight is opened and our chairman, Colin Powell welcomes you with a wry grin on his face.

[Indy Pendance]

I don't know if powell deserves to be hanged. He's doing his job, diplomacy. We'd be vilifying him if he started suggesting policy. We've got to have a position like his, and he has done his part. The diplomacy has failed, he has 'thrown in the hat' and now, it's up to the others to take it from here. It's kind of like the financial guy. Here's the numbers, you all should do this to meet the projections. Well, guess what, our business boomed or busted, the whole situation is a new game. Powell did his job, and he did a damn good job at diplomacy. But, he knew when to fold and walk away. Maybe it wasn't soon enough for us piano players, but in the big scheme, we are not in that position to make that call. You can't lay it all on powell, he is not the scape goat. It is a combination of all factors, his is just a part of it. In the meantime, we are still moving ships up the Suez. Maybe all the military pieces aren't in place yet either.

[George W. Bush]

It has to do with Bush having made such a forceful (a la read-my-lips) statement about how he WOULD have the vote come hell or high water. If there is now no vote, the press and the liberals will hammer him about the flip-flop without mercy from now until the election. It doesn't matter that the point is moot anyway. The cry of like-father-like-son will be yelled incessantly. You watch.

I'm not buying it. W. has not mindlessly shouted "Vote or Bust!" like Spook Daddy screamed "No New Taxes!" 5,000 times on national television and made it his central campaign promise and then proceeded to break the promise. Spook Daddy's retraction hit people in the pocket. W. not going for a U.N. vote costs nothing cause the majority of Americans consider it worthless and toothless to begin with.

And in the midst of a war, is the press going to try to sell dead trees with "But he promised us a vote...". Don't think so. And afterward, there'll be better things to talk about. There may be a little whining but it can hardly become a major issue. The Democrats can't really use it effectively because most of their legislators and all of their leadership endorsed Bush going to war. And the official policy of the Democrat party is that we never need U.N. permission for war (exception: Howard Dean).

[George W. Bush]

And a new member is initiated into the Understanding The United Nations Fandance club.

Darn it. I wanted to join the Destroying The United Nations Fandance Club.

[George W. Bush]

Maybe it wasn't soon enough for us piano players,...

Not soon enough for this piano player.

[Robert_Paulson2]

France might be under occupation itself this time next year.

sorry, but the cycle of the world... it is calling us to take out the trash again.
France is usually either the garbage or the can that it all goes in....

How long did the league of nations last?
The US, UK and Spain ought to try and form the foundationo for a new world security organization that has a few "requisites" for membership...

[Robert_Paulson2]

to be fair...
we have had the vote... it just has not been taken public.
We had either nine or ten with us... and France vetoed it ipso facto.

Russia and China, two other more blatantly communist nations, backed her up.
The rest is histoire... or so they say.

There was a vote. Every body showed Bush and Blair their votes... and now it's time to move on... the jig appears to be up. UN is dead... and but a vestige of the concept that it once bore... now is obit time... though no one will say it. It is true nonetheless.

And had there been a vote, with bush winning 10... the press would have still said... we failed to win a majority level support amongst our allies...

Why? because they can.

[George W. Bush]

France might be under occupation itself this time next year.

No! We will not fall for such a cheap trick. I absolutely refuse to approve of invading France again. Let them swirl in le toilet.

[Indy Pendance]

I believe what we are witnessing is a formation of a new 'league of nations' with those nations who embrace democracy. France and Germany, for example, embrace socialism, and would rather see a one world government. The Slavic nations do not take freedom for granted, see the vision of the constitution of the United States, and are willing to fight for liberty and freedom. France and Germany never had to fight for freedom. Someone else did it for them.

[Indy Pendance]

I agree, let France live with the decisions they make. They will beg us one day to save them from the tyranny of oppressive regimes that have taken total control of their country. We can make our decision at that time. Right now, they are chosing their fate.

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

Speaking of 'Spook Daddy Bush', can you explain something to me, please. An attorney friend of mine years ago, soon after X41's departure from public office, said that one of the last things that Daddy Bush did was to grant extensively greater powers to the U.N. I did not ask him about it back then (I was still in my own nice, little world), so don't know precisely what measures he was talking about. Do you know?
Thanks.

[George W. Bush]

Sorry. I can't think of much that Bush v1.0 did at the moment. Clinton was the one who did the most to surrender to the U.N., i.e. to France.

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

Well my friend despised Clinton, let there be no mistake about that. But, he always had been quite on top of politics (must've been that poli-sci undergrad degree, haha -- oh, and suffering the insufferable Clintonistas in his employment-he's a fed atty), so I have no doubt about his allegation. Aye, though, I DO so regret that I didn't query him about what Bush Sr. did. Thanks just the same ;-)

[thinktwice]

Russia didn't show up once, and it's said -- had they shown up -- that they might have vetoed the Korean war.