From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Mar 23 2003 - 18:29:14 MST
Mike Lorrey writes:
(Aside: I read this one after replying to your last post. Thanks a
lot it was great fun and I really needed to laugh)
> [quote from: paatschb@ocean.com.au on 2003-03-22 at 20:08:13]
>
> Doug Thayer writes:
>
> > these three invasions (40,000 troops each
> > time) did not result in a single security council resolution. So much
> > for \"the breakdown of international law\".
>
> You comment \"so much\" is a non-sequitor.
>
> Actually, it is spelled 'non-sequitur', but that is another issue.
Yes.
> Doug is entirely right to say what he does, sequitur or non-sequitur.
> Turkey has invaded Iraq three times in the last decade.
I haven't checked. I didn't see it as relevant. But I am willing to accept
that Doug and you are both right on this point.
> with no
> protest in the Security Council, no hand waving and squawking
> by the French, the Germans, or the Russians.
The Security Council doesn't do hand waving and squawking but
it is a fun image.
> Turkey never sought
> a resolution in the UN to support its actions, either, so if our action
> is a violation of international law, then Turkey is three times worse,
> yet I see no condemnation from the likes of you.
"Then", is the word that marks the non-sequitur, (thanks), in this
sentence.
Your mistake arises, I suspect, from not understanding the structure
and/or purpose of the Security Council and how it makes resolutions.
Turkey, unlike the US, and the UK are not permanent security council
members. Indeed it is not even a non-permanent security council
member (I don't know if Turkey was at the time of any of the earlier
incursions that you are referring too - that would be interesting).
> Is it that it so plainly exposes the sophistry of your arguments as the
> failed bleatings of a newsgroup lawyer?
>
No.
>
> The security council can only make resolutions when none of the
> five permanent members exercises their veto. And the Security
> Council doesn't always get involved.
>
> Why the heck not, Bret???
Now that is a good question and there are a number of reasons
I think. But perhaps the most important is because the Security
Council has five permanent security council members on it.
The US, the UK, "Russia", China, and France.
It is no coincidence that these 5 were the victorious powers in
World War II. The Security Council was intended to bring
the power to enforce its resolutions (when it made them) with it.
These five are few enough to make decisions and strong enough
to kick serious butt if they are in agreement. But in world affairs
they are hardly (any one of them) disinterested observers.
Hence all too often when problems have needed to be solved the
big 5 have not been able to reach agreement without one or more
of them "vetoing" a resolution. The big 5 are often exactly the
ones who tend to throw their weight around in the world and any
one of them can "veto" the forming of a security council resolution
that they see as against their interests or the interests of their friends
and allies (such as, perhaps, in the case of the US, Israel).
The strength of the UN, the big 5, is also its weakness.
But never before has the security council actually gotten such
substantial agreement on such an important issues. All 15 security
council members agreed to 1441 remember.
Never before, has a resolution once made, (and once made these
are the highest form of international law that there is), been stepped
away from by permanent security council resolution members.
> That is, according to you and your
> cronies, EXACTLY what the Security Council is supposed to
> prevent, according to your voluminous quotations of the UN
> Charter.
Not according to me. I did not sign the Charter. And I am aware
of no cronies ;-).
What the UN Charter and the Security Council is supposed to
prevent is according to the signatures of those that signed it
(and have not at this stage revoked the agreement).
The rest of your post seems to be of less relevance after this
point Mike.
But just so you don't think I am playing games with you. It is
not my position that President Bush could not under any
circumstances act outside the UN. It is my position that any
permanent security council member (and perhaps any member)
can revoke the UN Charter and withdraw from it thereby
absolving themselves of any obligations under it if they think it
has so seriously failed in its purpose.
But President Bush did not revoke the Charter like this. That
is my concern (or one of them). President Bush seems to think
that under his administration the US can treat its word of honor
given to other nations as optional. And that must have consequences.
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note to newbies]: The views above are only the views of this poster.
For a statement of Extropian Principles see:
http://www.extropy.org/ideas/principles.html
Other documents worth a look:
The Constitution of the United States of America.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
The Charter of The United Nations.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 18:10:38 MST