tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20537576.post5499330850789663104..comments2023-11-03T04:37:43.106-07:00Comments on Security Dilemmas: No Wonder The US Goes UnilateralSeth Weinbergerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02120373717676117647noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20537576.post-11426795015897031682007-02-22T15:18:00.000-08:002007-02-22T15:18:00.000-08:00WeeZie: You're either not reading my posts or you...WeeZie: You're either not reading my posts or you're misunderstanding my arguments. There is no denying that the US uses its veto power to block UN Security Council resolutions, especially as they pertain to Israel. That's not the point. If the US decided to never veto anything and obey every rule passed by the UN, the UN still wouldn't work because other countries have veto power too. It's not the US that was protecting Iraq, it's not the US that blocked interventions in Kosovo and Darfur. Voting according to its interest doesn't mean that the US is abusing its power because the UN is incapable of protecting the US's interest, or the interests of any country nor is it abusing power when Russia or China blocks something either. The UN is incapable of fulfilling its mission vis-a-vis international security due to its structural makeup which makes it almost always incapable of using force to enforce its rules and resolutions. And that is why the US does it without the UN. Whether you agree with how the US uses its power is another issue entirely.Seth Weinbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02120373717676117647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20537576.post-9565682330433671342007-02-22T15:09:00.000-08:002007-02-22T15:09:00.000-08:00True, but France, China, Russia, and the UK have n...True, but France, China, Russia, and the UK have not continually blocked resolutions for a span of 30 years. <BR/><BR/>Let me give you an example--<BR/>Dec 11, 2002 155 Member-states endorse UNGA Res. 57/125 reaffirming the applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV to Israeli practices and policies in the occupied territories, the U.S and Israel are the only ones casting an opposing vote. This is not in the security council but nonetheless, shows the nature of how the U.S abuses its power.Subalternatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17294820273892711205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20537576.post-37231999029570821702007-02-22T13:11:00.000-08:002007-02-22T13:11:00.000-08:00France, China, Russia, and the UK all have the sam...France, China, Russia, and the UK all have the same veto power...the problem isn't in the US per se, but in the structure of the UN itself. The laws and norms it creates cannot be enforced or upheld by the bureaucratic structure. That's the fundamental problem.Seth Weinbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02120373717676117647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20537576.post-39021280720797347242007-02-22T12:00:00.000-08:002007-02-22T12:00:00.000-08:00But you know as well I do that the U.S blocks EVER...But you know as well I do that the U.S blocks EVERYTHING on the security council that it deems against its interest. By virtue of that fact, the U.S controls much of the U.N apparatus.<BR/><BR/>During the summer war in Lebanon, where HezbAllah defeated the Israeli army (although I know you saw the war as an Israeli victory)every country in the world backed a ceasefire with the exception of Israel, the UK and the United States. Shouldn't the opinion of 150 other countries supersede the interests of 3? I would think so but nonetheless, the destruction of Lebanon was allowed to occur. The U.N can never have an enforcement mechanism if the U.S can simply veto any security resolution that is brought up.Subalternatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17294820273892711205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20537576.post-24814003741471333372007-02-22T10:29:00.000-08:002007-02-22T10:29:00.000-08:00Weezie:You need to read more carefully and not be ...Weezie:<BR/><BR/>You need to read more carefully and not be so dismissive. I note that IF the UN, or multilateral action more generally, is to be a serious option by which states pursue their national interest and security, it must be more meaningful, and that it can only be more meaningful by being willing to threaten (and ultimately use) violence. It is because the UN has no power than both Iran AND the US feel free to violate its dictates. If the US felt confident that the UN would do what is necessary to enforces it rules and protect international security, it is much more likely that the US would, in turn, respect the UN.Seth Weinbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02120373717676117647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20537576.post-70349396262633406352007-02-21T20:57:00.000-08:002007-02-21T20:57:00.000-08:00A simple observation I have made about your views....A simple observation I have made about your views.<BR/><BR/>You say that the Iraq vote is NOT illegal because international law, as put forth by the U.N is ineffective yet at the same time, you use, or rather abuse the name of the U.N when it comes to what Iran is doing. Is not not a double standard being set? <BR/>The U.S can go against the U.N charter but another nation, a signatory to the NPT who has no chance of actually having any weapons in the near future, should be reprimanded by the UN.Subalternatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17294820273892711205noreply@blogger.com