Vetoing, Has America taught France all it knows?

[The Fool]

Has the US set the standard where Vetoing UN resolutions is concerned?

From... http://www.crikey.com.au/whistleblower/2003/03/03/20030303unresolutions.html



With George Bush calling on the United Nations to honour Resolution 1441 and sanction an invasion of Iraq, now may be a good time to take a quick look at the list of United Nations resolutions the U.S. has vetoed or ignored regarding the Middle East.

Here are some of the more critical draft resolutions that have been vetoed by the United States:


S/11940 of 23 January 1976 (9 in favour, U.S. veto, 3 abstentions-Italy, Sweden, UK. China and Libya did not participate.) The U.N. affirms "The right of Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours to do so and the right of those choosing not to return to receive compensation for their property" and also "That Israel should withdraw from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967."

S/12022 of 24 March 1976 (14 in favour, U.S. veto) Noted that the U.N. is "Deeply concerned further at the measures taken by the Israeli authorities leading to the present grave situation including measures aimed at changing the physical, cultural, demographic and religious character of the occupied territories and, in particular, the City of Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and other violations of the human rights of the inhabitants of those territories."

S/14943 of 1 April 1982 (13 in favour, U.S. veto, 1 abstention-Zaire) Noted that the U.N. "Calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to rescind its decision disbanding the elected municipal council of El Bireh and its decision to remove from their posts the Mayors of Nablus and Ramallah."

S/15185 of 8 June 1982 (14 in favour, U.S. veto) Noted the U.N. "Reiterates its demand that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognised boundaries of Lebanon."

S/15347/Rev.1 of 6 August 1982 (11 in favour, U.S. veto, 3 abstentions-Togo, UK, Zaire) Requested that "all the States Members of the United Nations should refrain from supplying Israel with any weapons and from providing it with any military aid until the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Lebanese territory."

S/17769 of 29 January 1986 (13 in favour, U.S. veto, 1 abstention-Thailand) Noted that the U.N. "Determines once more that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that the policy and practices of Israel of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

S/20945/Rev.1 of 7 November 1989 (14 in favour, U.S. veto) Noted that the U.N. "Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territory, and in particular the siege of towns, the ransacking of the homes of inhabitants, as has happened at Beit Sahur, and the illegal and arbitrary confiscation of their property and valuables."

S/21326 of 31 May 1990 (14 in favour, U.S. veto) Attempted to establish "a Commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be dispatched immediately to examine the situation relating to the policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, in the Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since 1967."

S/1997/241 of 21 March 1997 (13 in favour, U.S. veto, 1 abstention-Costa Rica) Noted that the UN "Demands that Israel immediately cease construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, as well as all other Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories."

S/2001/270 of 27 March 2001 (9 in favour, U.S. veto, 4 abstentions-France, Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom) Noted "Voting against efforts to establish a United Nations observer force to protect Palestinian civilians, the United States vetoed a draft resolution expressing the Council's readiness to set up such a mechanism."



I am not for one minute arguing that the US had no right to Veto these resolutions. Neither am I arguing the merits or otherwise of these resolutions or resolution 1441. What I am arguing is that the Attitude of some Americans that the threat of a French Veto of 1441 is in some way an outrage is Hypocrisy....you can't have it both ways, If you use Vetos how can you squeal when others do the same?

[corplinx]

I don't think its the veto itself. I think its what it represents that has people so angry.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx
I don't think its the veto itself. I think its what it represents that has people so angry.
A fair point Corplinx. I have not seen a lot of debate on what it represents, I have seen a lot of lampooning of anything French, Including the renaming pieces of fried potato.

[iain]

Originally posted by corplinx
I don't think its the veto itself. I think its what it represents that has people so angry. Of course what it represents depends very much on who you ask. The French say it represents a desire to exhaust peaceful means before resorting to war and a belief that peaceful means can still work.

[Smalso]

But the U.S. only vetoes bad things. France is vetoing a good thing.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by The Fool
Has the US set the standard where Vetoing UN resolutions is concerned?

U.S. vetos sniped....


I am not for one minute arguing that the US had no right to Veto these resolutions. Neither am I arguing the merits or otherwise of these resolutions or resolution 1441. What I am arguing is that the Attitude of some Americans that the threat of a French Veto of 1441 is in some way an outrage is Hypocrisy....you can't have it both ways, If you use Vetos how can you squeal when others do the same?
The difference is, in the example of the vetos given, the resolutons were 'new'. They weren't specifically designed to address previous resolutons.

In the case of Iraq, Resolution 1441 had already passed. Iraq wasn't cooperating, and the 'serious consequences' phase should come into play. By vetoing any military action, France has said "This resolution which we signed previously means nothing".

[armageddonman]

I think it's time to clarify something: France didn't announce it would veto ANY resolution but only resolutions that would lead automatically to a war like the stupid idea to give Iraq 10 days to disarm and if US/UK felt that Iraq didn't comply would automatically sanction a war.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by The Fool
Has the US set the standard where Vetoing UN resolutions is concerned?
I think that distinction would have to belong to the U.S.S.R./Russia.

By the way, if you factor out all the times the United States has vetoed resolutions condemning Israel, it doesn't seem as though the U.S. veto gets used very often at all (at least not in the last two or three decades).

[richardm]

Originally posted by armageddonman
I think it's time to clarify something: France didn't announce it would veto ANY resolution but only resolutions that would lead automatically to a war like the stupid idea to give Iraq 10 days to disarm and if US/UK felt that Iraq didn't comply would automatically sanction a war.

They said that they would veto any resolution that would lead automatically to war if Iraq didn't comply, and never mind what the timescale would be. This removes the whole point of having another resolution, since it wouldn't be substantially different from the last one.

[armageddonman]

How sensible is a resolution that leads automatically to war? The US/UK are obviously of the opinion that THEY are authorized to decide if a resolution has been breached, however ONLY the UN have the authority to do so. Thus any resolution that would give the US/UK the pretense to start a war would be vetoed.

[fsol]

I think that distinction would have to belong to the U.S.S.R./Russia.

You know I always thought the following was true.

America holds the record for the most number of 'vetos' served on UN Security Council Resolutions. Britain ranks second with its' number of 'vetos'.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by armageddonman
How sensible is a resolution that leads automatically to war? The US/UK are obviously of the opinion that THEY are authorized to decide if a resolution has been breached, however ONLY the UN have the authority to do so. Thus any resolution that would give the US/UK the pretense to start a war would be vetoed.

It didn't automatically lead to war.

At any time in the last 12 years, at any time in the last 17 resolutions, Saddam could have said "here they are...get rid of them", there would have been no ambiguity then, none what so ever.

You see how easy it is to be taken in and accept the "Its the US/UK's fault" on this one...it's not.

Even the last proposed resolutiuon gave saddam a chance, no one expected disarmament in 10 days, what they wanted to see was the GENUINE commitment to disarm, its not something special, or particularly diffecult, the south Africans did it with the minimum of fuss, so why not Saddam?

The resolution was effectively vetoed BEFORE it was put to Iraq, wheres the sense in that??

[richardm]

Originally posted by armageddonman
How sensible is a resolution that leads automatically to war?


Originally posted by richardm They said that they would veto any resolution that would lead automatically to war if Iraq didn't comply, and never mind what the timescale would be.

There is a difference. The second resolution would have been designed to ensure that Saddam could not string out the inspection process until the UN lost interest. Like he did before.

But since France said that they would automatically veto any resolution that said there could be military action, there was no point to having the resolution at all. It is, in short, the "Unreasonable veto" that Blair warned he'd ignore.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Reginald
The resolution was effectively vetoed BEFORE it was put to Iraq, wheres the sense in that?? [/B]

Because the US/UK wanted this resolution to authorize them to start a war and France as well as most of the rest of the world doesn't think a war is neccessary at the moment.

[Advocate]

Since all the resolutions on Iraq so far have amounted to "Stop! Or I'll say stop again..." and the French refuse to allow any resolution with teeth, is it really surprising that any nation, especially a powerful one like the US, would see the UN as "irrelevant"? If the UN can't/won't make a country recently defeated in war comply with its resolutions within 12 years, why should any nation care what it says?

[Reginald]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Because the US/UK wanted this resolution to authorize them to start a war and France as well as most of the rest of the world doesn't think a war is neccessary at the moment.

Hello? Hello?

Saddam could easily have met the requirement put on him at ANY TIME in the last 12 years , thats TWELVE years.

I keep hearing these "Rush to war!" comments...what Rush?

If 12 years is a rush, I would love to see a leisurely amble to war!

Even the last proposal, the so called 2nd resolution (Which would have been the 18th!!), gave Saddam chance to shut up and put up.

Had he simply done what was required there would be no threat of war now.

How can you defend this activity (or lack of)??

Its simply a case of ignoring the bad guy because its oh so PC to do so.

[Tmy]

The US vetoed those resolutions cause we're in cahoots with Isreal. I guess that means France is in cahoots wh Saddam?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tmy
The US vetoed those resolutions cause we're in cahoots with Isreal. I guess that means France is in cahoots wh Saddam?

Well, isn't that the way that the US interprets it?

"If you aren't with us, you are against us."

Examples abound in US politics. If you aren't for raising taxes to give lots of money to homeless shelters, it must mean that you don't care about homeless people, etc.

[Barkhorn1x]

In an article regarding the abandonment of further diplomacy as irrelevant due to the stance of France;

"Fleischer told reporters: "The diplomatic window has closed as a result of the U.N.'s failure to enforce its own resolutions for Saddam to disarm."


Here is the link;
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq

Talk amongst yourselves.

Barkhorn.

PS: "stance of France" heh, heh:cool:

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Reginald
[B]

Hello? Hello?

Saddam could easily have met the requirement put on him at ANY TIME in the last 12 years , thats TWELVE years.



People seem to forget that the UN attestet that during the time the UN inspections went on in the 90's, over 90% of Iraq's WMDs were destroyed. People also seem to forget that Iraq didn't throw the inspectors out but they left on their own after Iraq discovered that some of the inspectors were in fact CIA agents.

Of course, people should not forget that Iraq lied to and hindered the inspectors many times but nevertheless it's simply not true that nothing had happened in Iraq in the last 12 years.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by armageddonman



People seem to forget that the UN attestet that during the time the UN inspections went on in the 90's, over 90% of Iraq's WMDs were destroyed. People also seem to forget that Iraq didn't throw the inspectors out but they left on their own after Iraq discovered that some of the inspectors were in fact CIA agents.

Of course, people should not forget that Iraq lied to and hindered the inspectors many times but nevertheless it's simply not true that nothing had happened in Iraq in the last 12 years.

What proof - beyond Iraqi allegations (and we all know how trustworthy SH is) can you provide that shows "some of the inspectors were in fact CIA agents"????

Really, you are too much the way you bend over backwards to give Iraq a break here. A short synopsis of weapons inspections;
28 February 1991: Gulf War ends, leaving Iraq subject to UN sanctions and arms inspections (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm);

29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors, provoking a diplomatic crisis which is defused with a Russian-brokered compromise.

13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America.
(Yea, THAT Scott Ritter - my how things change!)

23 February 1998: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announces a deal on weapons inspections after meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons inspections in Iraq.

14 November 1998: Baghdad tells the UN it is willing to allow inspections to resume.

17 November 1998: Unscom inspectors return to Iraq.

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

17 December 1999: Unscom is replaced by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic). Iraq rejects the resolution.

What more proof do you need that SH is just "jerking our chain"??

Finally, to state that 90% of Iraq's WMD were destroyed is hardly a comforting thought when dealing w/ - well - WMD! It's the other 10% and his capabilities to make more that should worry us.

...it's simply not true that nothing had happened in Iraq in the last 12 years.

Correct - just not nearly enough.

Barkhorn.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


What proof - beyond Iraqi allegations (and we all know how trustworthy SH is) can you provide that shows "some of the inspectors were in fact CIA agents"????



To summarize what you wrote below, the poster is mixing two aspects. The Iraqis tried to kick them out as they accused the inspectors of being CIA agents. The inspectors left for their own safety, but returned. In the end, the inspectors left for good (until recently) at the beheast of the UN so that Baghdad could be bombed.

The point is that the UN pulled inspectors voluntarily. They did not leave (for good) because they were kicked out.

This is a mistake that was made over and over again in the media, especially last fall when inspectors went back.