From: bitn@quads.uchicago.edu (nathan elery bitner)
Subject: Re: Mr. Ghaly is the right man in the right place.
Reply-To: bitn@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:25:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.094946@IASTATE.EDU> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan) writes:
>
>Its funny. I thought you said that the UN owed its existence to the US and the
>west and seeing the kind of action the UN has taken in many trouble spots, I
>would think the US, Britain, France made up the UN. The UN is infact a
>coalition
>of the US, Britain and France ( and now a subservient Russia). But you then

The UN does not owe its existence to anyone.  It owes its legitimacy to the
participation and support of the most powerful countries in the world, namely
the superpowers.  When both the US and USSR were superpowers, in order for
the UN to be effective, it had to have the support of these two countries.
Actions which either one did not support would not ever take place.  And this
rarely happened, so the UN was very ineffective -- even pathetically so.
Now there is only *one* superpower.  In order for UN action to be taken, it
would have to have the support of the United States and its allies, which now,
more or less, includes Russia.  *THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT* from the U.S. & Co.
being able to tell the UN what to do.  The UN is most certainly a separate
entity from the Western allies.  The United States cannot force the UN to do
whatever it wants.  The UN, however, cannot proceed with serious action 
withoue the support of the United States.  Do you see the difference?
	Secondly, Russia is *not* subservient.  Their goals have merely 
changed.  The goal of the USSR was to thwart the United States at every 
possible juncture and that meant taking the other side for *any* reason, as
long as it opposed the U.S.  Now, their main concerns are economic and in
insuring stable aid from the West.  So they choose their battles carefully.
They fight or argue over what is really important to them, not over any
stupid thing.  Russia, and especially the Russian people, are subservient to
no one, and it would be foolish to think otherwise.


>start to distinguish the UN from the will of the US and the west. The fact that
>all "enforcement of UN resolutions" are reserved for countries which threaten
>the economic and strategic interests of the west is not acknowledged. Thus we
>see the ineffectiveness of the UN when it comes to enforcing the resolutions in
>the case of Israel or South Africa, the embarrased knee-jerk reaction in trying
>to maintain "humanitarian" aid to Bosnia and the hand wringing pleas to the
>Serbs to stop the massacre in Bosnia.

Here you have hit the nail on the head, when talking about *** enforcement ***
of UN resolutions.  Only one country truly has the resources to fully,
completely, and effectively carry out the enforcement of major resolutions
especially requiring use of force -- the United States, obviously.  No one
else has the military superiority combined with the economic resources
necessary to carry out many such actions.  This is what it means to be a
"superpower," in part.  If Iran was a superpower, or had the military 
capabilities the U.S. had, the apparent "will" of the United Nations would
seem very different.  And, by the way, the UN *has* condemned Israel, despite
the wishes of the U.S. (but in the General Assembly, of course).  The vote
was something like 172-2, with Great Britain abstaining.  But that's my point
-- so what?  They're not actually going to do anything -- they're just
passing judgement.  Remember when the U.S. didn't want Yasir Arafat coming
to UN headqtrs. in NY?  They were admonished by the UN by the same vote,
and lost considerable respect in the body.  The will of the U.S. is not always
the same as the UN.  I can tell you this -- the UN would never use force in the
cases of Israel or South Africa, no matter what the U.S. thought.  They would
enforce economic embargoes, like they have done to South Africa in the past.
And, Israel, quite frankly, has the military strength to tell the UN to
screw off as long as they don't do anything too drastic.  It has nothing to do
with the will of the U.S.

*BUT* ... getting back to Bosnia-Hercegovina.  The point is **THIS**:

          --  THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE SECRETARY GENERAL BOUTROS BOUTROS-
		GHALI *HAS FAILED* BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA.  PERIOD.	


>
>Now tell me, how is it possible to get the UN to pass a resolution against a
>country like Iraq in 24 hours, but cannot get to agree even on a draft to
>condemn countries like Israel, if not for the active manipulation and dictation
>of resolutions by the west, led by the US. If the remaining members of
>the Security council apart from the permanent members were to call for military
>action against a country like Israel to evict it from the occupied territories 
>do you think the US would go along with it ? There would be an immediate veto.
>
Why should they when they would have to be the ones to enforce such a stupid
resolution?  Do you expect me to allow my government to send my brother to
die for a cause that my country does not support and the country's people
do not believe in?  If the other members of the Security Council were able
to enforce resolutions on their own, then it might be different.  But they're
not.  And, furthermore, do you think Russia would go along with it?  Britain?
France?  Germany?  China?  Japan?  *Egypt* (I can tell you that they wouldn't)?
Brazil? Niger?  Morocco?  Belgium?  India?  etc!  The point is that the only 
countries who would support something like that are extremist countries like
Syria, Cuba, Yemen, etc. and a few moderates like Jordan.  So the point is
moot.
	The United States supports the UN economically and militarily. 
Therefore, they have a right to strongly influence when the U.N. takes
*serious* action.  However, they are not the UN.  They do not tell the members
of the UN or the S-G what to do.  If they could, the no-fly zone over BiH
would be enforced right now.  But the UN has no backbone and that is why,
until the direction of their charter changes, they will be ineffective at
handling such heinous crises as that in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

>
>--Javed.
> 

*-Nathan-*
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         INTER ARMA SILENT LEGES                      |
| "Worship Ditka NOW."                email:  bitn@midway.uchicago.edu |
|______________________________________________________________________| 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna