US vs. UN

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

John RE:US vs. UN 7/3/2002 5:41:30 AM

Oh I see, rules apply to everyone but America? Slobbo can go before international courts, but your guys can't? Then may be it's better if you do stay home. The US has a long history of ignoring international law when it wants to and then using it as a pretext to get Saddam, ghaddaffi or whoever this month's enemy is. That's hypocrisy. We don't want a world policeman who operates outside the rule of law. Why does that seem so strange?

Quote Reply

Phoenix Rising RE:US vs. UN 7/3/2002 6:30:16 AM

John, Ignoring international law? I wouldn't call it that. I would call it taking issue with interpretations of international law by others being forced upon us to create a witch hunt. I do see anti-American-minded European politicians using the ICC as a way to get in slights at America under a veneer of international legitimacy (as defined by them). In short, it is a way to give Europe more control over American actions. Slobbo was not sending peacekeepers into the most Godforsaken areas of the world to try to keep warring parties from destroying each other and destabilizing entire regions of the world. Slobbo did not have a unified command hierarchy that addressed every single square inch of the globe, the way America does. No country in the world sends more forces abroad, either in absolute or proportional terms, than America. It always appears in these votes that America is standing against the ICC shoulder-to-shoulder with such irresponsible regimes as Libya and Sudan. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem is that it may well be in the interests of international justice or human rights or what have you to have America FIGHT Sudan or Libya at some point in the future. However, if that carries with it the risk of Europe calling us into account for doing it differently than they would have, we're far more apt to simply allow Libya, Sudan, Syria, etc. to continue doing whatever they want to to their indigenous populations because we don't want to put American servicemen at risk. I generally don't believe in international law; I think it generally amounts more to international politics. I'm sure a lot of third world dictatorships voted to ratify the ICC not because they wanted to demonstrate commitment to international justice, but because they knew the existence of it would tie the hands of America in implementing it. You say you don't want a world policeman that operates outside the rule of law. I respect that. However, why don't you trust the American court-martial system and civil justice system to deal with American offenders? If we don't have the kind of standards of justice that you want to see enforced, then it is probably best that America withdraw from all peacekeeping actions. Do you believe that our justice system is inherently corrupt? That the judicial branch would never rule against the executive (of which the Army is part)? I would argue that history does not bear that out. America was FOUNDED on the concept of rule of law. We helped found it elsewhere in the world. I don't think there's any other country in the world that can make a greater claim to have promoted the rule of law more aggressively worldwide than America. Mongolia had nothing to lose by signing onto the Court. Mongolia's army never goes anywhere. France and Germany had nothing to lose, because they don't WANT to send their armies anywhere and they will be glad to use the court as an excuse not to if necessary. The only countries that had anything to lose by signing onto the court were America and the countries she might be called upon to oppose someday. If you don't believe that this court was set up as a foundation for future witch hunts against America, just ask yourself this: who has thus far been discussed as possible defendants? Has anyone suggested indicting Saddam Hussein? Osama bin Laden? Ghaddafi? Fahd? Yasser Arafat? Hu Jintao or any of the other Communist oppressors in China? Any of the Ayatollahs in Iran? Any of the leaders of the FARC? Anyone currently involved in the crises in Indonesia, Madagascar, Nepal, Myanmar, Algeria, or Rwanda/Burundi, where incredible violations of human rights and large-scale loss of life are daily occurrences? Fidel Castro? Nope. The most common name I've heard proposed is Ariel Sharon. Don Rumsfeld is another. I'm sure some would love to try the pilots of of the plane that accidentally bombed a wedding in Afghanistan recently. Why are all these people supposedly war criminals, while those above are somehow beyond the jurisdiction of the ICC? Until the proponents of this court come out with a way to address these concerns, Bush is unfortunately right to withhold America's signature from the ICC treaty. --Phoenix Rising

Quote Reply

Ben RE:US vs. UN 7/3/2002 8:31:36 AM

The US ignoring the rule of Law? WHAT law? the UN is mostly made up of tin pot regimes, dictatorships, and other assorted political minded machiavellians hostile to the Rule of Law in the first place. These are the guys who put Sudan and Syria in the human rights committee! Asking the US forces to be beholden to their court is like putting the MAFIA in charge of investigating abuses of the NYPD. And THAT is hypocrisy: "We have an organization that has Sudan, Syria, and Iraq as members in good standing. We want to give them legal authority to initiate kangaroo courts over your actions. What, you're complaining, oh, you Americans!"

Quote Reply

John To Ben & Phoenix 7/3/2002 10:07:55 AM

International law doesn't exist. I can go with that one. Fair enough, so don't hide behind it when it serves your purposes then. Between 1984 and 1987 there were 150 instances when the US cast a solitary no vote against general assembly resolutions. It's not just in support of Israel, which seems fair enough, it was on Apartheid, human rights, pollution, disarmament etc etc. You and Iraq are the only two countries not to have ratified the UN resolution on the rights of the child. I know that America is more moral than most countries around the world, but if you go round treating international law with contempt, using it when it suits you and ignoring it when it doesn't, then you can't be surprised when other countries doubt your motives. You can't have it both ways

Quote Reply

Ben On the US being the UN dissent; 7/3/2002 11:01:22 AM

A great British author observed that the principal failing of democracy is the discovery by the voters that they can vote themselves more money. The US, as the major source of this money, is therefore and inevitably stuck with the role of being the stick in the mud. The US is also saddled with a legal system than ensures that we actually have to do what the government says. The European Union, for example, can happily, simultaneously, berate the US for not signing Kyoto, and subsidize coal plants. Here, if we signed and ratified such a thing, groups would sue, successfully, for the closure of the coal plants. Another quote from a great British Author: "Sometimes I believe six impossibly things before bedtime". Sadly, we cannot, because given our society, we would see no end to the lawsuits. It would be great if, for example, we could be like Japan and claim we have no discrimination at all, and just not acknowledge the existence of "No foreigners" signs on shops, clubs, and bathhouses. We simply can't. Not our style. I shall close with a parable of the town butchers: In all the windows but one, the signs said: veal, $1.99 a pound. In that last window, the sign said: Veal, $5.99 a pound. One morning, a shopper, newly arrived to the town, went from butcher to butcher trying to buy veal, but none was avalable. Upon arriving at the last shop, the buyer asked: "Why is it every other butcher advertises Veal at $1.99 a pound, and you ask 3 times that. Isn't it unfair?" The butcher replied: they advertise $1.99 a pound, you see, because I HAVE Veal!" The UN is trying to sell our Veal again.

Quote Reply

Phoenix Rising RE:To Ben & Phoenix 7/3/2002 1:10:04 PM

John, OK, now we're in agreement. The U.S. should NOT be hiding behind international law so often. It should be an assisting, but not an exclusive, legitimating factor for our actions. International law is so fluid and nebulous right now that it can be interpreted to say whatever anyone wants to say; that's not what the original intent of laying down codified laws of conduct between nations was. International law, ideally, was meant to be a DE-legitimizing pressure against aggression. Generally speaking, it has been used for just the opposite. It's one of those sad cases of the best of intentions leading to the worst of results. I would also pose the question to the U.N. General Assembly: how many times have you [collectively] actually followed through on those resolutions passed so nearly unanimously when it would mean serious material sacrifice on your part? ("You" in this case is in no way directed at the British, just any random individual member of the GA.) You say that we have not ratified the UN convention on pollution. Fair enough. But how much do we pollute, compared to most countries with a substantial manufacturing base? Few countries have the environmental standards we do (Europe does, so you can cast stones ... but I don't think Saudi Arabia or Thailand can say the same). You say that we haven't ratified the treaty on "disarmament" ... what exactly was this? Somehow, I don't think the U.S. would be overly impressed by a promise from Morocco to get rid of their nuclear weapons. What was on the table to be disarmed? If it's the landmines treaty you're talking about, I'll actually partially agree with you ... American forces should be able to defend their positions without mines. On the other hand, certain cluster munitions (which we've spent millions more than any other nation developing and procuring) would also be banned by the treaty, leaving us with thousands of tons of worthless, explosive scrap metal. Not exactly sound policy. Morocco didn't have that concern when they signed it. What specific "human rights" legislation are you referring to? These come in all different flavors, and new ones pop up every year. I haven't looked at the convention on the rights of the child yet; I'm imagining that the U.S. probably objects to one or two minor provisions of it that, if removed, would clear the way for its passage. The fact remains that children are certainly not abused as a matter of policy in this country, and childhood in America is certainly better for most Americans than that of children in many countries that have ratified the treaty. Your point about not having it both ways is well taken. It may not be completely correct (few things in this world are completely black and white), but it's well taken nonetheless; we certainly can't stand 100% on one side and 100% on the other simultaneously. I don't think that there's any inherent hypocrisy in saying that international law is well-developed enough to handle some issues and not others at the present time, however. One way I look at current international law is in the context of a model paralleling the political system at the state level in most democracies. At the state level, you have legislative, executive, and judicial functions. You have separation of powers, and you have checks and balances. ALL are needed to maintain effective and fair treatment of the citizens of the society. International law corresponds primarily to the judicial branch of the government. The ICC is essentially a judicial body; the Geneva Conventions were written similarly to legislation, but since then they have been open to argument and interpretation similar to what you would find a barrister or solicitor doing. The list goes on. The problem is that the executive and legislative functions on the international level are nowhere near developed enough to make this "international law" worth anything yet. What good is a local court without police and city council? I'm sure Romano Prodi would love to be World President someday, but I'm not sure the world is ready for him. I'm sure the unelected bureaucrats of the EU would be glad to be world legislators someday, but I don't think the world is ready for them. Likewise, I'm sure the proponents of this new ICC and other institutions of international law would love to be World Justices someday, but I don't believe the world is ready for them. The difference is that the "international law" proponents are here and must be answered now; the "World Congress" is still a long way away. --Phoenix Rising

Quote Reply

Panda Liberation Army RE:To Ben & Phoenix 7/3/2002 5:35:47 PM

I used to be in Model UN in high school and college (I was even the Secretary General once!). When I got to the real UN, I didn't notice much difference between adoloescents voting for petty resolutions that talked the world and accomplished nothing, and what the real UN actualy did. The UN serves one useful purpose as a meeting forum for nations to come on neutral ground and discuss a handful of substantive matters, largely related to international disputes. Whenever it's gotten into issues not related to the above (such as trade or welfare), the UN has caused about twice as much damage as it's prevented in just about every situation. For the UN to be trying to branch out to be a sort of "Universal Judiciary" is a dangerous game that will be humorously useless at worst, and extremely disruptive to the international order it's supposed to be maintaining. Panda Liberation Army

Quote Reply

Jeff from Michigan To Phoenix - The problem with international treaties 7/4/2002 9:50:55 PM

Phoenix, One point about why international treaties are worthless. That is that most "nations" are not at the level where they can be kept. Outside the Western countries which I will include Japan, South Korea and Singapore you have no internal enforcement mechanism. Hence the treaty is only worth the paper it is written on unless you go in and invade. That doesn't raise much trust in treaties. The latest example has to be the attempted indictment of Sharon and not Arafat. Kyoto was an attempt to drag the U.S. economy down to the level of Europe. We had a feckless president that signed treaties as good photo ops then recommended against it's passage. Other than trade treaties I believe that bilateral treaties are the best because they are between governments with their nations best interest in mind. Also treaties that try to govern the moral norms will not work because they attempt "social engineering". That is why the child and women treaties will not pass. They try and impose a liberal Western Europe morality on societies that are not to that point including the U.S. Regarding Kyoto I believe that Bush handled it wrong. He should have forced the senate to vote on it and made it clear to the American public what the impact would have been. It would have caused all the greens fits as they would try to explain it to the people. When the Senate had a resolution regarding the treaty it rejected it 99-0 arguing for re-writes or changes to the treaty. Finally remember that treaties become the law of the land and have the same force in law as the constitution. Treaties should be contracts entered into with great responsibility and respect to the ramifications.

Quote Reply

Jeff from Michigan To Panda man 7/4/2002 9:56:53 PM

Panda you are right about what the UN can do well which is to be able to discuss and let off steam so that international tensions go haywire. I never had problems with the UN per se but with it's agencies. No doubt in my mind that the refugee agency no matter how well intentioned has caused the Palestinian and now Rwanda refugees become a permanent fixture. I wouldn't even go into UNESCO. Talk yes, social engineering no.

Quote Reply

TB RE:US vs. UN 7/28/2002 6:24:26 PM

I wished Aust. didnt sign but we did however, our troops will not be prosected- it was a condition on sighning

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT