UN Security Council, General Assembly United for Peace Loophole!

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.

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.”

Good idea. However France and Germany as well as Russia would still qualify.

Still the worse countries in the world would not. As long as veto power was not allowed for France, Germany and Britin I suppose it could work. Even the USA should not have complete Veto power they should have to be seconded by a secont tier country like France, Germany, Italy etc.

Yes, those three would qualify. But we can't go on forever without them. And you're right about veto powers. Nobody should have them. A simple majority of the general assemply should be sufficient and final.

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.

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...

GWB, I hope you're right. Robert, yes, they'll hammer him no matter what. They are the liberal press, after all. I just know how they and their fellow elected Democrats work, and when a Republican gives a unequivocal answer about something they are or are not going to do and then does something else, they pay dearly for it. We'll see how it plays out.

Yeah, our allies are under the ICC agreement, but in the final analysis, this little power grab will boil down to what really decides every conflict-- the combination of military and economic power, along with the will to use them. We have that, Britain has that, and we'll help any of our other allies that need it.

I notice that Blair's legal advisor is saying that previous resolutions give the Britain and the allies all the authority we need. That's why we need to stall anything the Weasels might try to introduce in the Security Council.

"No blood for oil" is foolish. Keep marching, idiots."

These children are young and under the influence of the communist party USA dreamers. They have a marxist utopian dream that is shattered by the advancement of capitalism and the notion that they might have to get a job.

The scary part is that these children will grow up to be the leaders of tomorrow. One of these idiots will become the next clinton. My kid will have to tolerate these idiots elected to leadership positions in a populist vote. Thats why I equipped him with a powerful debating ability and a firm conservative footing of common sense.

I suggest you all begin to prepare your children from the youngest possible age.

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."

Today, as it happened then, the liberals will go into screaming hysteria. Love the quotes. Thanks

>>I'm under the impression the general assembly makes a decision<<

This way of putting it gives an important insight into postmodern thought.

"The General Assembly makes a decision". So?

So 'effing what?

This is like state legislatures passing laws giving everyone the "right" to healthcare.

Without the intention and the means to carry it out, such "legislation" is meaningless.

As are "actions" of the UN.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.