Monday, August 11, 2008
U.N. Security Council [Jonah Goldberg]
Why on earth is Obama calling for a UN Security Council resolution, essentially against Russia? Doesn't he know Russia has a veto? Isn't it crazy to think that Russia will vote against its national policy? Does Obama understand this? Or is this just the sort of thing Democrats must say whenever something bad happens? What am I missing?
Update: Aha, I stand corrected:
Jonah,
RE: Obama calling for a UN Security council resolution, you discuss Russia’s veto on the Security Council. According to Article 27 of the UN Charter, a party to a dispute must abstain from voting, so Russia could not exercise its veto. However, they can probably depend on China to veto on their behalf.
Me: I assume the reader is right about China (given Tibet and all), but the Chinese must nonetheless be exceedingly cross with Russia given how much this has stepped on the Olympics.
Update II: I should quit while I'm ahead — or a bit behind — but I could've sworn that there was more to this than the above reader suggested. After all, the only time I can remember when the UN Security Council voted decisively against the wishes of a permanent member was the famous episode authorizing the Korean War police action when the Soviet rep walked out before the vote. Anyway, here's an email from a different reader:
Dear Jonah,
Regarding your recent post on the UN Charter: Your reader failed to cite the full Article 27, which only calls for a member of the Security Council that is party to a dispute to abstain from voting if the matter at hand is being decided under Chapter VI or paragraph 3 of Article 52. Chapter VI of the Charter pertains to "Pacific Settlement of Disputes". It is a toothless chapter and simply amounts to the UN asking the parties involved to settle their disputes by peaceful means. Chapter VI resolutions are not binding on member states. Russia would not, however, be required to abstain from voting on any Article VII resolutions regarding a dispute to which it is a party. Article VII of the Charter pertains to "Action With Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression," which has more teeth than Chapter VI (at least in theory) and is theoretically binding on all member states.
So, your first assumption regarding Obama was likely correct: He simply doesn't know what he is talking about, and has taken this opportunity to demonstrate once again his foreign policy cluelessness.
And then there's this from another reader:
I hope you aren't giving Obama credit for knowing that Russia would have to abstain? He didn't even know which Senate committee he was on.
As a practical matter I do not think (though I could easily be wrong) any resolution adversely directly relating to a member of the security council has ever been successful. Tacit agreement not to use the security council against its permanent members.
One(?) More Update: I don't know how I missed this. This email says it all:
Jonah,
I hope you have space for another update to that post, because John McCain also called for a Security Council resolution condemning Russia. So today I learned that neither you, Barack Obama, nor John McCain know how the Security Council works.
Me: Okay, so I go back to the original questio, but put McCain in the dock too. Why call for a UN Security Council resolution when there can't possibly be one? My suspicion is that the answer is the same for Obama as it is for McCain. It's simply something people who believe in the UN say whether it makes sense or not.
Update (and you thought I was done!): From a reader:
Subject: To be fair to McCain
The statement your last emailer linked indicated McCain was aware of your point:
"The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council....We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion."
The best gloss on that would be that he knows the UN is useless, but he wants votes from people who think that the US wouldn't be alone in the world if that mean old Bush would have used magical phrases like "Security Council" and "world public opinion" more often.
08/11 07:01 PM
Share
