the new cold[warm]war, page-11

Nambucca,

And, your point is?

This thread originated in commenting on a new Cold War theme.

I added some commentary to reflect that the UNSC in 21C continues to reflect the outcome of 1945, as opposed to filling the collective notions of:
1)
contribution "to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization"; and
2)
"to equitable geographical distribution" (Art 23(1)).

France's permanent status in the UNSC came about because of the application of Art 106 which states the following:

"Pending the coming into force of such special agreements referred to in Article 43 as in the opinion of the Security Council enable it to begin the exercise of its responsibilities under Article 42, the parties to the Four-Nation Declaration, signed at Moscow, 30 October 1943, and France, shall, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of that Declaration, consult with one another and as occasion requires with other Members of the United Nations with a view to such joint action on behalf of the Organization as may be necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security".

So, not only was France not originally contemplated as a UNSC permanent member, it was not part of the Four-Nation Declaration.

As I said in an earlier posting, France owes much of its role to the efforts of Charles de Gaulle (of the Free French) as opposed to the Vichy.

As for today, changes will need to be made to bring the UNSC into 21C changes otherwise it will risk ending up falling foul of the same fate as the League of Nations.

Remember, it was out of French insistence at Versailles that led to war reparations being imposed against the Germans. Equally, so, it was the French who continued to demand the payment of reparations when the British and the Americans were arguing for moderation, and relief (that was, by 1922).

Similarly, now in 2003, the French intervention status in Ivory Coast continues to be questioned, as both the citizens of Cote d'Ivorie continue to rebel, the rebels continue to oppose, and the French expeditionary force is taking on more, and more, the characteristics of a former colonial occupation force, propping up a puppet Government which, incidentally, was never recognised by the EU, the USA, or by the OAS (led by Nigeria) when Presidential elections were held in late 2001. Still isn't.

By what claim of international law was the French intervention justified?

Or, should we say that the French were invited in at the behest of the "legitimate" Government of Cote d'Ivorie?

If so, then that is within the permissible behaviour of the UN Charter, just as the South Vietnamese invited American intervention in Vietnam.

As for your arguments concerning Art. 2(4) and 51, this is the very same argument as is taxing scholars, politicans and diplomats the world over.

Is, what the USA proposing in violation of International Law, or not?

On a strict interpretation of Art 2(4) and 51, the answer may well be yes.

But, to what extent has the USA acted in violation of international law to date?

Hard to say, but the critics of the USA will be able to point to all manner of supposed arguments, etc.

But, right now, the USA is located in strategic regions of the Middle East, but most notable in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and in Oman. They also have a presence in Saudi Arabia and in Turkey.

In the case of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman, the Coalition forces were invited in by the respective Governments of those countries.

Similarly, the USA presence in Saudi Arabia has been on an invited basis, however, permission to launch strikes from Saudi Arabia has not yet been given (although reports from Saudi Arabia last week suggested that permisison had now been given).

The story is similar in Turkey, although there, the situation is complicated by NATO's decision to come to the collective aid and defence of Turkey - an action which is also supported under Art.52 (regional defensive arrangements).

As for the right to deploy forces in the Middle East, one would question just how the UNSC intends bringing about Iraqi compliance which, since the 1991 ceasefire, has seen Iraq acting in continuous defiance of its disarmament obligations.

At what point in time do you expect the UNSC to enforce its resolutions, including 1441, which have been passed without veto?

After 12 years of non-compliance, and complacent enforcement by the UNSC, the question remains whether the UNSC has already broken down under its own inability to enforce its own decisions.

But, that's the problem really - today's appeasement will quickly translate to tomorrow's wars.

Yes, maybe the USA (et al) are wrong. But, if they now withdraw and allow for French autocracy to take over, and Iraq has not dis-armed, or does again threaten its neighbours, will we then see the French pouring their soldiers in to reinforce the peace? Or, will we see the French over-whelming a former colony territory?

That's the problem really - no-one wants the USA to do anything, and wants to blame the USA for everything. But, then again, no-one really wants to live in the same way as the North Koreans, the Iraqis, etc.

Funny that.

So, let's all now go to sleep and then wake up again tomorrow, as by then someone will have done all our dirty work for us, because, as John Elliott put it last Thursday: "I made it my business not to know".

If the UNSC decides not to act, and if the Americans do not then move, will the French, Germans and Russians shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for enforcing Saddam's rehabilitation?

I think not. So, what say you?

In closing, Nambucca, just out of interest, what was your nic before you became Nambucca? For someone who has only been with HC since 14 February, 2003, you certainly have posted a lot (225 posts, to date), and know a lot about all other posters out there. Not related to Mr-Humility (joined 14 January 2003, and not posted since 13 February 2003), by any chance?