The Rights of Sovereign Nations

[Modred]

A comment by spastic-ninja has given me an idea for a debate, which I hope will be somewhat intelligent.

One last thing for everyone to think about, and I should have said this from the very start: One government does not have the authority to engage in warfare with another country ('liberation'). The UN did not back USA's military campaign into Iraq, therefore, USA had not right to move into Iraq. It is also not USA's right to remove a dictator from a country. That is solely up to the UN.
This brings me to my question. If the United States does not have the authority to engage in a private conflict with another nation, does the United Nations have the authority to ordain the conflict of one nation with another?

Assuming that a sovereign nation does not have the right to protect its own interests, unilaterally if necessary (I am now attempting to broaden beyond the US alone and appeal to the abstract idea), then I would say that the United Nations also cannot have the power to allow one nation to wage war upon another.

If we consider the United Nations to be a "world government," then we would allow it to transcend all national law much in a way that the US system allows Federal law to override State and Municipal law. Under such a government, it would be inefficient and wasteful for the member states to squabble among themselves, when instead they should be working for the common good of everyone. The United Nations was founded as a way to prevent warfare through negotiation, and eventually spawned into the organization we have today which governs much more than simply arbitration between nations.

So we must ask where the alleged power of the United Nations came from. Much like in a democratic society, the power granted to the United Nations comes from what the member states are willing to allow it. Were key member states, such as the US, France, Russia, or the UK to decide they no longer wish to give the United Nations the powers they had previously granted, then the UN would soon become as defunct as the League of Nations became when the US refused to join.

The United Nations is a joint effort between suppossedly civilization nations in an attempt to make the world better. But if one nation believes it is in the best interest of it's population to go to war with a threatening nation, and the other nation has the support of the UN, we can quickly escalate into a World War II-esque situation in which a belligerent nation plays a game of give-and-take to see how far they can reach before the world snaps to attention.

Given the danger of allowing the United Nations to control the warfare of it's member states, even order warfare upon regions of it's member states, I find that the United Nations should not be given such a power. Or rather, in the rare ocassion in which a nation believes it has the imperitive need to access the threat of another nation, it should not be up to a collaboration of foreign powers to decide the course of action. Foreign powers are good for arbitration, because they are detached, however they are not good planners for military action which they oppose.

Also, we must consider the very idea of allowing the UN to condone warfare in the first place. If the head of our world collaboration, being the United Nations, allows, even requests for a group of it's member nations to attack another member nation, we may find that the UN is attacking itself in an indirect way. What sort of logic is it that two nations of the same order should be at war, with the authority of that order? As the cliche rolls, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." By allowing member nations to fight amongst themselves, even for the "greater" good, the United Nations is undermining it's purpose of preventing warfare. If this were allowed to continue, various member states would eventually become aware of the uselessness of the United Nations and undoubtably would withdraw, thus causing the collapse of the UN.

So, I conclude that either sovereign nations have the right to go to war, or else no one may condone war, including the United Nations.

[spastic-ninJa]

Good post/thread, Modred.

It is my belief that the United Nations Organisation should either be as close to perfect as possible (IE: it prevents warfare and violence in the world, thus preserving peace amongst its member nations), or it should be removed from existence. We have been shown both the effectiveness and the incompetence of the United Nations in many situations; a most recent one, the war in Iraq. Now, the UN did not give authority for this war, yet, they did nothing against USA's assault upon foreign borders. (Please note that I do not go against USA in this thread; enough of that was practiced in the Bush vs Kerry thread.)

Now, this sounds very ineffective on the UN's part to me. If the UN was keeping to its principles (keeping peace, through neglecting to wage war), then it should have proposed USA's removal of forces from Iraq, else, defend Iraq. It appears as though the UN did not want to oppose USA, but did not want to aid Iraq; after all, Saddam was abusing human rights. I believe that UN wanted Saddam's removal, but were agitated about USA's individual involvement, as it puts all power into USA's hands.

The thing is, USA, being a member nation of the UN, is obliged to follow the UN's guidlines, those being "keeping peace" and "avoiding conflicts," basically. Else, USA is obliged to leave the UN.

What I think needs to be done in order for the UN to achieve its full potential is this: the UN should have a powerful, widespread, Intelligence system, that is utilized effectively. Now, I am fairly positive that there is one in place, based on logical reason, however, it seems to be rather useless. The UN should have the capacity to flush out terrorists, and possibly, spies. If the UN had been working effectively, then war would almost never escalate during the reign of the UN (although some cases are almost impossible to stop, ie: Tutsi/Hutu conflicts -- however, even in this example a peace could have been reached without the loss of millions of lives).

Another way that would prevent warfare is this: diplomatic negotiations before a conflict occurs. As Modred said, a host of foreign nations cannot possibly decide on a fair conclusion if a member nation is threatened by another country. Now, instead of saying "No, do not wage war," they should be conducting negotiations to determine whether warfare was likely to break out or not. By this, I mean that the UN should consult members of the opposing nations' parliament on their own terms, not the UN's. Warfare is very rarely prevented when the nations visit the chambers of the UN. However, human nature proves that a negotiation is more likely to succeed if it is out of the public's eye, or on the opposing nations' grounds, or on a neutral country's soil (let's say that the UN is not neutral, for the purpose of simplicity). An example of this is the peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt during the late 1970's. Both leaders of each country travelled to the other's land, and a peaceful resolution was finally agreed upon, after both leaders negotiated at Camp David (neutral ground).

In conclusion: UN is obliged to do far more to avoid conflicts esculating (specific methods outlined above), or, for the reason of being ineffective, it should be removed. HOWEVER, until either of these occurances happen, ALL member nations must follow the UN's resolutions on matters of conflicts.

[Mattimeo]

Good post/thread, Modred.

It is my belief that the United Nations Organisation should either be as close to perfect as possible (IE: it prevents warfare and violence in the world, thus preserving peace amongst its member nations), or it should be removed from existence. We have been shown both the effectiveness and the incompetence of the United Nations in many situations; a most recent one, the war in Iraq. Now, the UN did not give authority for this war, yet, they did nothing against USA's assault upon foreign borders. (Please note that I do not go against USA in this thread; enough of that was practiced in the Bush vs Kerry thread.)

I believe that in this situation the UN did not itself feel that war against Iraq was wrong, seeing as Saddam Hussein violated UN resolutions, but certain nations felt that the UN should not be involved. Because France, England, the US, Russia, and China (i think?) can veto anything the UN is rendered higly ineffective. This system needs to be changed. I think that representation should be based on population (a la the US Congress, although that is another ineffective body, oh dear.)

Now, this sounds very ineffective on the UN's part to me. If the UN was keeping to its principles (keeping peace, through neglecting to wage war), then it should have proposed USA's removal of forces from Iraq, else, defend Iraq. It appears as though the UN did not want to oppose USA, but did not want to aid Iraq; after all, Saddam was abusing human rights. I believe that UN wanted Saddam's removal, but were agitated about USA's individual involvement, as it puts all power into USA's hands.

Like I said above, I think we basically agree on this.

The thing is, USA, being a member nation of the UN, is obliged to follow the UN's guidlines, those being "keeping peace" and "avoiding conflicts," basically. Else, USA is obliged to leave the UN.

I believe that a nation's first responsibility should be to protect itself, not to do what the UN says. Now you can argue whether Iraq threatened the US but the fact of the matter is that Bush believed that and acted in the intrest of his country. I believe that is how any leader should act. I believe that France and Germany were also doing that in the sense that Iraq was not a threat to them and therefore they didn't want to endanger their own people. They have a right to do that, but they don't have a right to oppose a country that is protecting its own intrests.

What I think needs to be done in order for the UN to achieve its full potential is this: the UN should have a powerful, widespread, Intelligence system, that is utilized effectively. Now, I am fairly positive that there is one in place, based on logical reason, however, it seems to be rather useless. The UN should have the capacity to flush out terrorists, and possibly, spies. If the UN had been working effectively, then war would almost never escalate during the reign of the UN (although some cases are almost impossible to stop, ie: Tutsi/Hutu conflicts -- however, even in this example a peace could have been reached without the loss of millions of lives).

That is a good dream, but I don't believe that many nations would support giving the UN that much power over their country, trying to get information on a member country without the member country's consent. If we could believe the leaders of all the nations in the UN then this system you propose would be unnecessary. If the UN gathered intelligence on a country it would basically be like saying that the UN doesn't trust you and if the UN won't believe what you say then what's the point of being the UN. The UN would break up.

Another way that would prevent warfare is this: diplomatic negotiations before a conflict occurs. As Modred said, a host of foreign nations cannot possibly decide on a fair conclusion if a member nation is threatened by another country. Now, instead of saying "No, do not wage war," they should be conducting negotiations to determine whether warfare was likely to break out or not. By this, I mean that the UN should consult members of the opposing nations' parliament on their own terms, not the UN's. Warfare is very rarely prevented when the nations visit the chambers of the UN. However, human nature proves that a negotiation is more likely to succeed if it is out of the public's eye, or on the opposing nations' grounds, or on a neutral country's soil (let's say that the UN is not neutral, for the purpose of simplicity). An example of this is the peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt during the late 1970's. Both leaders of each country travelled to the other's land, and a peaceful resolution was finally agreed upon, after both leaders negotiated at Camp David (neutral ground).

If diplomatic negotiations within the UN cannot succeed then the UN should be disbanded. Your example of the Camp David accords just shows that the UN is not necessary for a peaceful negotiation.

In conclusion: UN is obliged to do far more to avoid conflicts esculating (specific methods outlined above), or, for the reason of being ineffective, it should be removed. HOWEVER, until either of these occurances happen, ALL member nations must follow the UN's resolutions on matters of conflicts.

Like I said above I believe that a nations first concern is its own well being, not what the UN tells it to do. But that aside you say if the UN is ineffective then it sould be removed and you also say that peaceful negotiation within the UN rarely works. Therefore, by your reasoning, the UN should be removed.

Don't back out on me this time, k? :)

~Don't Panic

[spastic-ninJa]

Well, Mattimeo, this post of yours was a bit less biased and was worth reading a lot more than the other, no offence (as, I hope, mine has been in this thread in contrast to the other) :)

I also realised that the other thread was just going to fall to pieces, and we would end up posting one liner replys to the other's argument. Best to leave the thread to die, so I say ;)

------------

Anyway:

If diplomatic negotiations within the UN cannot succeed then the UN should be disbanded. Your example of the Camp David accords just shows that the UN is not necessary for a peaceful negotiation.
Absolutely. The UN was ineffective in bringing about a peaceful scenario in the Middle-East, yet they should not have relied on Carter, Sadat, and Begin to come to peaceful terms. My point is that the UN should have been creating these peaceful scenarios, rather than having to rely on the USA and the conflicting nations themselves. In this way, it is extremely ineffective, and could easily go the way of the League of Nations.

That is a good dream, but I don't believe that many nations would support giving the UN that much power over their country, trying to get information on a member country without the member country's consent. If we could believe the leaders of all the nations in the UN then this system you propose would be unnecessary. If the UN gathered intelligence on a country it would basically be like saying that the UN doesn't trust you and if the UN won't believe what you say then what's the point of being the UN. The UN would break up.
Well, I can dream, can't I? ;) I think it's actually a good proposition, because, although the element of trust wouldn't be there, more beneficial resolutions could be founded, as well as knowledge of what the majority of the conflicting nations' populace wants, and the UN could act accordingly. They wouldn't have to be spies, exactly; diplomatic immune people could work effectively, say, with the establishment of a UN embassy in the majority of countries over the globe.

Like I said above I believe that a nations first concern is its own well being, not what the UN tells it to do. But that aside you say if the UN is ineffective then it sould be removed and you also say that peaceful negotiation within the UN rarely works. Therefore, by your reasoning, the UN should be removed.
Yes, either the UN should be removed, or the US should remove itself from the UN; else, the actions of both powers would contradict each other, for example: USA attacks from its best interests, UN opposes, yet nothing is done about it. This just does not seem right to me.

[LordAhriman]

The US and UN could not possibly contradict each other, because the UN is a meaningless institution save in its symbolism. It's only as good as the countries within it.

[spastic-ninJa]

Therefore, based on your comment, UN = US ("...UN is only as good as countries within it..."), which you would obviously disagree with. Therefore, your post is meaningless and in no way related to the discussion.