nato?
A people's Revolution
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
NATO normally need a UN Resolution, but there may be a way to intervene through the UN's new Right to Protect initiative that requires the international community to take action when a state is unable to protect its own population from atrocities. Since it was only adopted in 2005, there's still some legal ambiguity as to whether it allows coalitions or individual states to override a security council veto, but I'm guessing that will matter less over time as people hear of more and more violence and death in Syria. At this point, the only thing keeping Assad in business is Russia - not only are they vetoing resolutions, but are apparently still providing arms to the government.
That
Russia and China really can be complete idiots at times.
The Arab league has been against foreign intervention in this case hasn't it? One of the things so key to justifying the Libyan adventure. There's even been some talk of the Arab league themselves sending a military mission, which I would find hilarious if it wasn't guaranteed to fail.
The UN is bureaucratic and often unable to sort out disputes between the big powers but its still needed imo. Until countries are more willing to give up sovereignty to a 'world govt' style organisation like the UN, then it will appear weak in the face of crises like this.
The Arab league has been against foreign intervention in this case hasn't it? One of the things so key to justifying the Libyan adventure. There's even been some talk of the Arab league themselves sending a military mission, which I would find hilarious if it wasn't guaranteed to fail.
The UN is bureaucratic and often unable to sort out disputes between the big powers but its still needed imo. Until countries are more willing to give up sovereignty to a 'world govt' style organisation like the UN, then it will appear weak in the face of crises like this.
A lot of these problems will be solved once Russia and China go democratic. The reason both governments try to block these types of humanitarian gestures lies with their own anxieties that protests will eventually wind up on their own front doors (as they already are today with Putin and Russia). Once all five members of the security council are Democratic, the UN system as a whole will work much more effectively.
The Chinese and Russians didn't veto because they fear similar reprisals at home, they, like other big powers, were defending their regional interests. And quite frankly the outrage regarding the veto is ironic considering the US have used their veto no less than SIXTY times to veto condemnations of Israeli illegal colonisation. Susan rice might want to remember that the next time she walks off the assembly in a strop. If you want the UN to work effectively then you remove everyone's vetoing powers, period. Otherwise you'll have to make do with other nations using it to their personal advantage like the US does.
The other strange thing is how we're suddenly willing to listen to the Arab league - an organisation made up of despots such as the Saudi, Bahranian and Yemeni regime, all of which have violently suppressed democratic protests themselves, and probably all of which boast worse human rights and democratic scoring than Syria, yet suddenly their opinion matters.
Whose stupid idea was it to give every member of the security council, a board which doesn't represent the overwhelming majority of the world, a veto on UN resolutions? Was it so that the security council could always appear united in its support or condemnation or something?
Anyone get the impression that the Western powers went to China some years ago and explained to them that we control our people more effectively with capitalism and pop culture than socialism ever could?
I think that's the only way the former USSR would come to the table.
wiki
Considering who else was in the UN it makes sense from the Soviet perspective, otherwise they could be 'forced' to do things against their interest. But yeah, it's been a bit of a disaster.
Ok. And we're possibly thinking of expanding the security council to include the likes of India as well? I'd be more inclined to scrap it and go through the UN general assembly, we are supporters of democracy right?
Russian and Chinese economic interests wouldn't suddenly crumble with a change of government in Syria. They're more concerned with the impact of pro-democracy demonstrations spreading to Moscow and Beijing. Syria is just the latest domino on the way to global Democracy.
Security council reform has been discussed for some time. I think the biggest piece of reform, however, would be for Russia and China to reform internally and become respectable election driven Democracies, which would render the security council veto a moot point.
You can say that about anyone though. Both those countries regional interests didn't entirely collapse when Saddam fell. The US hasn't really suffered too much damage when its allies had been overthrown in the last 50 years either. One country isn't going to make or break a major power's regional and economic interests, but if they have the power to enforce a veto then they'll do so to defend regional allies - which in the case of Russian and China is Syria, and with the US its Israel.
Doesn't Russia have its final military base in the Middle East in Syria? And strong economic interests?
In fact, seems the Russians were planning on entering the Middle East again soon.
Russia: Russia plans navy bases in Syria, Libyia, Yemen - Nachrichten English-News - WELT ONLINE
Coincidence.
In fact, seems the Russians were planning on entering the Middle East again soon.
Russia: Russia plans navy bases in Syria, Libyia, Yemen - Nachrichten English-News - WELT ONLINE
Coincidence.
Yes, I agree with that on the surface that Russia and China have been allied with the Assad regime. But there will come a point in all of this when the violence will reach a point where Russia and China can no longer pull the "veto because we're allies" card anymore and just as with Libya, will have to abstain from another vote in order to allow the resolution to pass. Alternatively, the ICC can indict Assad (which is going to happen anyway) and NATO can act under the crimes against humanity and the UN's responsibility to protect Genocide clause to legally circumvent the security council veto, which would leave Russia and China completely frozen out. In either case, Assad departure is an inevitability.
Of course that would be a major step towards making the veto moot but those two are not the only ones who use the veto in a way that leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
I genuinely don't see the need for it anymore. We're not in the cold war era, we're all apparently striving for a democratic world. The UN isn't a particularly good example when the 5 most powerful nations in the world can veto any motion that isn't to their liking, often at odds with the GA, as China, Russia and the US have all previously done. I'm sure the UK and France have at times done the same.
Scrap it and take motions through the General assembly.
I think so too, I'm more worried about the aftermath now. Once you've started killing your own people on a mass scale, you see enemies everywhere and the slide into civil war isn't far off.
The security council isn't going anywhere in the near future. It still represents the biggest economic and military powers in the world and they're not going to give up their power to accomodate smaller, less significant states who bring little in terms of economic, technological, or military power to the table. Its still a world where those with the material and economic resources rule.
Agreed completely. I'm not foolish enough to think we are working towards that, just my own position on the matter.
It's an attempt to stop a war between the major nuclear powers, obviously. As bad as it is that we get self-interested vetoes, it's better than two major nations squaring up to each other.
I think the P5 is fine as it is...I don't see John Bolton the offspring of a f-ing wh0re calling the UN useless when the US/UK/France use their veto, but when China and Russia do it...it's all, 'this bring the credibility of the UN into question.'
Really?
They should feck the UN off when it comes to diplomatic/political issues, and keep the useful things going... WHO, FAO, UNESCO.
Really?
They should feck the UN off when it comes to diplomatic/political issues, and keep the useful things going... WHO, FAO, UNESCO.
They're not playing the 'veto because we're allies' card, their 'excuse' is that they believe intervention will exacerbate sectarian tensions and drift the nation into a devastating civil war.
Now you can be as rightly sceptical as you want towards the Russian/Chinese, but I think they have a point here, regardless of how sincere they are with their concerns. Syria, like Iraq, is very sensitively divided along sectarian lines with the minority sect (the Alawites), holding power....just as the Sunnis had boasted power in Iraq. Furthermore there's a whole plethora of other sects namely the Druzes, Christians and Kurds, all of which want either greater representation or even independence, again the similarities with Iraq are uncanny.
I also think the media has irresponsibly reported the events occurring in Syria. What they're broadcasting is a dictator ruthlessly murdering 'peaceful' protesters, the reality however is that there's a quasi-Civil war occurring between Syrian forces and armed rebels who seek power in Syria. My scepticism is regarding the nature of these 'rebels', many of which have ties to radical Islamic organisations, and most of which are receiving covert funding from the Turks and Saudis. Furthermore there's no reporting of the the fact that a huge number of people killed in Syria have been Syrian soldiers, as well as civilians killed by rebel terrorist attacks.
The situation there is currently very volatile, but its more complicated than simply a case of a mad dictator killing off peaceful protesters. And even if that were the case, there'd still be an element of hypocrisy considering we've selectively taken an interest in Syria while choosing to ignore similar crime in places like Bahrain, Yemen and to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia. And these are the countries who've ironically been most vocal in demanding action in Syria.
What would you do RedKaos?
No, they're using what you say as an excuse for inaction. 13 out of 15 members voted in favor excepting only Russia and China. Regional influence is one thing, the democracy movements spreading to their own countries is another. They are acting in contravention to international norms on this matter, and won't have any legal or moral leverage to stop a transatlantic coalition from going in and nudging Assad out like they did with Qaddafi.
Its inevitable that Assad is on his way out and Russia and China won't be able to stop the inertia of what's happening inside Syria. Naturally, this would also be quite an inconvenience to Iran and Hezbollah.
The US was the only nation (outside of Israel) to vote against Palestinian incorporaton into UNESCO...a recurrent theme, it can't exactly play the majority card. And I'm not disagreeing with the lack of sincerity in Russia/China's concerns, but their concerns (namely all-out civil war) are very real ones indeed.
Whats your point? Yes, Assad going would be an inconvenience to Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah....just like how the Bahraini and Yemeni regimes going democratic would be an inconvenience to the US and Saudi Arabia. Its all a game of chess for major powers, no side can truly claim the moral and humanitarian high-ground - they selectively condemn and support despots when it suits them.
Truthfully I'm not quite sure how I would answer that, though it depends on who I would be personifying.
I don't buy the Russian/Chinese line on civil war inside Syria. Indeed, its difficult for states who are at the wrong end of civil liberty and human rights issues to use concern of other states going to civil war, when their own actions (for example, not vetoing the resolution) could actually expedite a peaceful transition within Syria.
I'll buy that argument to a degree that western economic interests dominate policy outcomes in the middle east.
If you look at the state of Syria now I think its beyond a peaceful transition - its borderline sectarian civil war. Though lets assume that the resolution was never vetoed, what would then be the next natural course of action? Boycotts? Military intervention?
If done properly, it would begin with condemnations that "name and shame" and delegitimize Assad's government into stopping the attacks on their population. If the attacks don't stop (highly unlikely they would), then there would need to be another resolution containing language to allow international force to stop it (probably in conjunction with an ICC ruling and a Genocide convention justification). That would allow something similar to what took place with NATO and Libya to happen in Syria. Given his internal lack of support, it wouldn't take much to embolden the public and get sufficient military defectors to quickly turn the tide. The question is how much longer collective sentiment is willing to take the violence.
Thats all good and dandy but you're making one inaccurate assumption - the fact that he has little support. His support believe it or not is fairly substantial, and arguably more prominent than that enjoyed by Saddam and Gaddafi. So in essence you're backing one side over another, potentially leading to a laborious and devastating civil war.
And using Libya as a framework is a recipe for disaster, as I've said - military intervention only exacerbates the situation.
Well its always a similar situation with these dictators who are on their way out isn't it. They instruct "rent-a-mobs" to create faux demonstrations for the media while at the same time instructing their militaries to kill shoot their own soldiers who object to opening fire on civilians. Whether he knows it or not, every action Assad takes from this point has a spill over effect to expediting his ouster, whether by eventual internal revolution or by the help of the international forces.
And re: Libya, its difficult to say about whether intervention exacerbates or calms given that Egypt continues to have problems when it didn't have an intervention.
Not really, its common knowledge that Assad enjoys plenty of support beyond his rent-a-mob mercenaries. Alawites and secularists at the very least tend to hold a positive opinion of him. You have to take into account that much of the opposition to him is sectarian - Druze's and Kurds for starters want independence of some degree, whereas the Sunnis are unhappy that an Alawaite minority hold power.
As for Egypt, well despite its volatile nature its been no where near as violent as Libya or Syria, I'd imagine that would be down to the fact the country is unanimously united in their opposition to Mubarak. The same can't be said about Libya, Syria or even Iraq - who's dictator's had enjoyed substantial support from those belonging to their 'tribe' or those simply distrusting of the alternatives.
And while we're at it I think people ought to study the deaths in Syria - a large proportion of them are Syrian soldiers and Alawite civilians, which tells us that this goes beyond 'state-sponsored violence'.
I think the genie is out of the bottle in Syria now. The rebels aren't going to accept a situation where there isn't a clear path to some sort of democratic or representative system of government. We just have to figure out the quickest and least bloody way of getting there.
I don't think the international community would be right to just stand back and let them slug it out, with the winners taking power by force.
I don't think the international community would be right to just stand back and let them slug it out, with the winners taking power by force.
Support from his tiny cultish sect and a group of elites won't be enough to save his skin. He should heed the warnings of what happened in Libya and negotiate a peaceful transition now, or else risk going down Qaddafi's path.
Tiny cultish sect? You're talking about 15% of the population here, and add to that the non-alawite secularists who also support him. Its possible to suggest that he doesn't enjoy majority support but to simply dismiss his supporters as being a tiny insubstantial bunch is simply false, plenty of them have been murdered by terrorist death squads and indiscriminate mortar fire.
He's an authoritarian dictator who comes from an extreme minority of the Syrian population. We have no idea how many of these minority actually support him given the lack of transparent elections. But the bottom line is that he's a dictator with no populist mandate to be where he is, and who is ordering his military to shoot at protesters.
Oh he's probably shooting and torturing protesters alright, but the rebels are guilty of the same thing considering the number of dead Syrian soldiers and innocent civilians being massacred by these very same rebels. The point I'm trying to make is that this is essentially a sectarian-driven civil war with horrific atrocities being committed by both sides. To take sides in this would only worsen the situation.
Its also interesting how your description above also accurately describes the the Bahraini regime, would the US support a similar resolution aimed at Bahrain?
The civil war is entirely Assad's fault and shouldn't be viewed any differently than any of the other movements during the Arab spring. People want greater freedoms and the days of authoritarian dictators are quickly coming to an end. Attempting to justify inaction by cloaking this as a factional struggle misses the broader point.
Agreed with the first part, though unfortunately its a concept only seems to be selectively applied by certain powers.
I'm justifying inaction on the grounds that it would worsen, not alleviate the situation.
RedKaos just loves a good dictator (unless they're Saudi).