From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 10:26:38 MST
John Clarke writes:
> "Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au>
>
> >When I see "international law" I see it something like this
> >"inter" - "national" "law"
> >Which part of this strikes you as the silly bit?
>
> The "law" bit.
Ok. I do recall what you've written previously, I think. Would it
be fair to characterise your position as being scornful not just of
international law them but of law generally? But perhaps with
some extra contempt for international law because of its manifest
failures to date and the problems in enforcing it? No trap intended.
I'm enjoying the discussion please feel free to re-caracterise or
restate your position in your own words (or not). You and I have
discussed law before and agreed it can be an ass. But I suspect
a deeper and interesting (to me anyway) difference between us.
Perhaps you are one of these anarchist folk whose positions I
don't really understand yet. Perhaps I have an interest in law
which enables me to see some merit in having a workable ass.
Sort of something on which civilization can sit.
>
> >You may recall that the first Gulf War, to expell an illegal
> > and aggressive invasion of Kuwait was in fact carried out
> > under a UN resolution.
>
> And you may recall that between April and July of 1994 more
> than 800,000 people were murdered in the genocide in
> Rwanda, the UN refused to do anything about it, the USA did
> nothing either and if they had put a stop to it they would have
> been labelled a criminal, at least according to some.
I don't recall the details of dates and deaths but I accept that
you do. I don't think that it was a case of the UN refusing though
was it? Did anyone try and take the case to the UN do you know?
The UN Charter Article 2 Para 7 (A2P7) specifically states
"Nothing contained [in it] shall authorise the UN to intervene in
matters which are essentially of domestic jurisdiction of any
state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to
settlement under [it]..."
Part of the design compromise to get a UN Charter that was
signable was to not try and make it all things to all people as
indeed such would have made it unenforceable, as the big 5,
the permanent security council members would not have gone
for a Charter that dictated to them how they treat their own
nationals. I don't think this point is well understood about the
UN. It has quite specific jurisdiction and can't take more.
And even what jurisdiction it has it only has so far as the
security council permanent members don't veto a decision.
Ultimately all power to enforce comes from the permanent
security council members military power when they are in
concert (which has been pretty rarely)..
> A few
> years later ethnic cleansing started in Kosovo and again the
> UN refused to do a thing about it but this time the USA
> decided to become a "criminal" and stop it on their own.
Same thing. It had to have jurisdiction. With respect I think you
are doing what many people do with respect to the UN and seeing
it as a tool of greater utility than it really is (or was). Then your
finding it comes up short against the mistakenly high expectation.
Maybe I'm wrong on this. Have you ever checked out the Charter?
As I've said I have only recently taken an interest in it which is ironic
as I think it is now probably discredited beyond repair, at least
whilst the US and the UK hold the position they are holding, which
is that they have not breached the Charter at all. Even if they were
to change their position I am not sure that enough of the rest of the
world would trust these countries and particularly the US whilst they
remain in the stewardship of the current heads of state.
>
> More recent mass murders with deaths in the 5 and 6 figure
> range can be found in East Timor, Sierra Leone, Sudan,
> Angola and more; the UN and International Suggestions did
> absolutely nothing to stop any of them. Many are fond of
> saying might doesn't make right but they forget the UN
> doesn't make right either.
Same comment as above. And true.
>
> >There is enforcement. It arises out of the consequences of
> >having a bad reputation.
>
> I will not bet my life that fear of a bad reputation will protect
> me from a murderer like Ted Bundy; I want policemen armed
> with guns.
I wouldn't expect you too. The UN is not *primarily* about the
individual rights of persons, any functions in that area were extras
that came about as dividends of the collective security arrangements.
It (the UN) is *primarily* about maintaining "inter"-national peace
and security between sovereign nations.
> I have even less
> confidence that it will protect me from Osama Bin laden or
> Saddam Hussein because in certain circles their reputation
> would improve not decline by killing a person like me.
Wouldn't you just be another American like other American's
to them? I mean I doubt they'd have a personal grudge. But I
repeat the UN was not set up to protect individual US citizens
from attack.
I am not disputing for a moment that the citizens of the US have
been attacked by terrorists and that the US President is not only
entitled but obligated to act to protect them. I disagree(d) with
President Bush's approach because I saw/see it as inferior to
alternatives not because I disagree(d) with his desire to disarm
Saddam or to protect American citizens in the face of a new
sort of threat. My criticism of Bush is more that he is a leader
that takes on too much collateral damage. Like a bad general
he is a danger to his own side. He is getting more American's
than necessary killed. He is of course *also* a danger to the
other side.
>
> >the world war 11 leaders Roosevelt and Churchill saw some
> >merit in establishing the UN Charter.
>
> And they spent about a thousand times as much time effort and
> money making one hell of a lot of weapons.
This brings up an interesting point. Did you know that one of the
reasons or benefits of the UN Charter was supposed to be that
there would be a sort of peace dividend as Member nations would
not need to spend so much on weapons and military force?
That was also *intended* to be a part of the essential quid pro quo.
That the UN has failed in some senses in the past, and has seriously
failed in the very recent past with the current crisis doesn't change
that it is failing because of the actions of *particular* member states.
Of course agreements will fail if they are not honoured by those who
are a party to them. The failure isn't inherent in all international
agreements. No one is talking about their country now abandoning
the Geneva conventions for instance.
My point is that President Bush more than any other leader had the
opportunity to put real force into the UN (and it was in the US's
interests long term for him to do so). Historically, post the cold
war, with American as the dominant superpower, the US could
have been a strong agent for making the UN work as it was supposed
to. It absolutely cannot if the US breaches the Charter. The US is too
strong. Imo, the only thing that could have kept the US in the UN
effectively in the recent crisis was a smarter US President.
>
> >It is not just the words that one puts on (paper) that makes
> >international law (or any other law). It is the strength and courage
> >and conviction of those who think that promises should be kept
> >so that there is the possibility, the precious possibility of peace.
>
> Those who value strength, courage, honesty and peace are
> wonderful people but they are not the ones I worry about, they
> are not the people who want to kill me.
Statistically I would think that the chances would be greater at
present of you being killed by another American. (This might be
changing now as a result of President Bush's approach to pursuing
the war on terrorism). I could be wrong and its beside the point not
just because the risk of one does not rule out the risk of the other.
I think you and I would agree that it would have been untenable for
President Bush to do nothing post September 11 about weapons of
mass destruction remaining in the hands of rouge states. I don't know
if we'd agree that it was a mistake for him to take the course that he
did. Because so far I don't think you have stated a position on it. My
position is that (at least temporarily) President Bush has made the
US a rouge state. And indeed John Howard has done the same for
Australia but Australia hardly matters. Imo, the US will recover but
not quickly and not on President Bush's watch. He has already done
far too much damage.
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 10:07:28 MST