Ciao!

Lessons from Kosovo

03.09.2003

The precedent for US-led "unilateral" intervention was set by Clinton in 1999 when NATO intervened militarily to prevent a humanitarian disaster in Kosovo. It followed on the heels of UN inaction in Rwanda and Bosnia - both w/ catastrophic results. A series of US-led NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia, then ground forces to secure Kosovo, and only then was the situation handed over to the United Nations.

Ramesh Thakur's analysis of the Kosovo case is instructive. He points out the pros and cons of unsanctioned intervention. And while he does prefer retaining the status quo of UN proceduralism (he is, after all, vice rector of the United Nations University), he points out that the current Security Council is out of sync w/ political reality. Here's an excerpt:

Fifth and finally, one could argue that the sequence of events shows that the real center of international political and economic gravity has shifted from the UNSC to the G-8 countries plus China. That was the forum in which the critical negotiations were held and the crucial compromises and decisions made. With the assistance of Russia and through the involvement of the G-8 (the group of seven industrialized states plus Russia), whose mediation was accepted by Belgrade, the war was eventually brought to an end and Yugoslav troops were withdrawn from Kosovo. This reflects the failure to reform the UN Security Council in composition and procedure, as a result of which it no longer mirrors the world as it really is. In essence, therefore, the "G-8 plus" is the Security Council as it ought to be.

I definitely agree that the Security Council - w/ its veto power structure - is not what it should be. In part, I think the UN is out of date. It was, after all, created during the Second World War. The term was coined by Roosevelt in 1941 (in the Atlantic Charter), and the term "United Nations" was soon adopted by the allied nations in 1942.

Today's Washington Post editorial starkly points out that the current debate is not about Iraq at all. After all, no one argues that Hussein has complied w/ SC 1441 (which was passed unanimously and gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to disarm or face "serious consequences"). Instead, the debate centers on containing American power. And that will undo them. Here's an excerpt:

By taking its case to the United Nations, the Bush administration tested whether the Security Council -- which only rarely in the past 50 years has been able to respond to the world's crises -- could serve as a place where such threats could be addressed. Yet after six months of intensive effort, France, Russia, Germany and others refuse to accept the consequences of the process they claim to favor. They would rather the Security Council abandon its own resolutions, or split apart, than endorse a U.S. use of force against an outlaw tyrant. If their goal is really to preserve the U.N. security system, they should join in supporting the enforcement of U.N. resolutions; if it is merely to contain the United States, they should not be allowed to succeed.

BTW, if you're counting on France, Russia, or China to veto the current Security Council resolution on Iraq - don't hold your breath. Here's a table on vetoes. China has only ever used its veto power four times. France only eighteen (and only three times since 1985). Russia (or rather the USSR) has used the veto more than any other, but only twice since 1985. Odds any of the three will veto this resolution? Slim.

Posted by Miguel at 12:08 PM

Comments

Posted by: Miguel at March 12, 2003 03:43 PM