TPSIPOL FORUM: RED 04/23/2003 DEMOCRATIC
realpolitik and CRISIS SECURITY COUNCIL
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion/message/15619
By: Oswaldo de Rivero
* To use the international forces need the explicit permission of the Security Council . In other words, that of the 15 Council members, a majority vote of at least 9 countries in favor and there is no dissenting vote (veto) of any of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. The only exception to this explicit permission is the use of force as a legitimate defense against an armed attack by surprise, which then exercised, must be immediately reported to the Security Council.
This is the legal-political metaphysics authorizing the use of force in international relations. I mean metaphysics because to work in the real world should not go against the current world power structure, whether this structure bipolar, unipolar. When all the politico-legal metaphysical scaffolding applies regardless of world power, the Security Council made crisis.
collective security system of the United Nations has to practice realpolitik or crumble the earthquakes that cause power politics bipolar or unipolar. During the Cold War, ie, when power was a bipolar world, the Security Council adjusted to this reality of global power, worked with realpolitik and admitted his marginality respecting the catchment areas of the two superpowers. Thus, the Soviet Union invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan and the United States intervened in Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Grenada and Panama, without the Security Council to rule on these interventions from the United Nations Charter.
The end of the Cold War and the implosion of the USSR was a cataclysm of tectonic plates of the bipolar structure of power giving rise to the unipolar world. United States emerged as the global hegemon. Its catchment area covers the entire globe, including areas of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe, the Baltic, Central Asia and the Caucasus.
Today, the United Nations problem is that this new unipolar world power structure is more difficult to reconcile with the collective security system of the Security Council. If the bipolarity was also difficult to settle conflicts is even greater extent, with the unipolar power structure because this tends to resort to unilateralism on issues that even go beyond the issues of the Council, thus affecting all multilateral action the United Nations system.
When I finish bipolarity, naively believed that life was a new world order where work collective security system of the Security Council. This is because for the first time Council left the marginality imposed achievement of bipolarity and authorize the collective use of force against Iraq during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. However, this authorization was only possible because the United States opened its unipolar power strongly in favor of the Security Council, brewing with this power unanimity of all members to expel Iraq from Kuwait militarily. Slightly
lasted this illusion of smooth functioning of the Security Council with a unipolar structure. Indeed, the United States in 1999, supported by NATO, defied the Council, without your permission, because of opposition from Russia and China, made use of force against Serbia, bombing Belgrade and Kosovo, thus opening after the Cold War, its unilateralism against the multilateral system of collective security of the Security Council. Soon
also the unilateralism of the unipolar been felt in other areas. U.S. refusal to be controlled by the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, also refuse to be members of the International Criminal Court and requested the court immunity even against U.S. troops involved in Operation Maintenance of Peace established by the Security Council.
The unipolarity and unilateralism became doctrine when in September 2002, the United States roared to the unipolar world his new strategy. In a statement issued by the Bush administration stated that the U.S. is willing to maintain its leading power and safety of any other power in the world. The document made clear that would not allow any other power could rival U.S. military power. Washington also said the military unilateralism, proclaiming the doctrine of "pre-emptive armed attack, ie attack without being attacked, totally contrary to the collective security system of the Security Council.
The announcement of this new doctrine did nothing but exacerbate the distrust and disgust felt by France and Germany, Russia and China against unipolarity and American unilateralism. Already in 1998 the then Foreign Minister Vedrine of France Humbert had said clearly: "We can not accept a unipolar world and are fighting for a multipolar system." Also, Russian President Vladimir Putin and China's President Jiang Zemein had repeatedly stated he did not accept a unipolar system. In July 2001 Russia and China entered into a treaty which undertook to build a multipolar world.
Despite the new strategic doctrine of preventive war and that Congress had approved the war against Iraq no matter what the Security Council decides, the administration Bush, contrary to all realpolitik, gambled and appealed to the Security Council seeking a resolution that would legitimize, nothing less than a preventive war against Iraq. The United States could very well justify their unilateral pre-emptive intervention in Iraq, as they did in Kosovo. At that time legitimized their unilateral intervention by invoking the ethnic cleansing and human rights. In the case of Iraq could have invoked the defense of the authority of the Security Council because Iraq had violated the ceasefire imposed in 1991 for 12 years ten breach of Security Council resolutions asking it to disarm.
United States not only turned the Security Council, but also resorted warning that Iraq would attack even if the Council did not authorize the attack. That is, presented a draft resolution requesting authorization to use force but at the same time saying he did not need authorization! In doing so, the United States did nothing, to ask for a global referendum on United Nations for recognition as a hegemon and legitimize their unilateralism.
diplomatic
This aberration is quite contrary to realpolitik. Kissinger surely a realistic Matternich follower never would have made a move as confusing and risky to the Council. With it, the only thing that got states States was a diplomatic failure. Had to withdraw its decision to the threat of veto from France, Russia and China, as we have seen, were searching for a multipolar world.
However, neither France, Russia and China acted guided by a "realpolitik" because it sought nothing less than imposing the multipolarism through its veto at the United States. This claim was unrealistic because the Council not to formally define the structure of power unipolar or multipolar world. The stark historical reality of international relations is that power flows from global conflict, and it went, the United States attacked Iraq and returned them to demonstrate to France, Russia and China is the world's unipolar power.
Lack of realpolitik of the five permanent members with veto seriously wounded the multilateral system of collective security of the United Nations because the Security Council is not architected to support the challenge of a referendum on unipolarity or multipolarity and a diplomatic dispute unrealistic from a global hegemon and three great powers can not equal in real formal power but only by having veto.
The truth is that the Council throughout the Cold War and after it, only been able to resolve some conflicts which do not affect the structure of world power. Could not resolve the situation in Somalia, is paralyzed in Bosnia, where NATO replaced the United Nations, not act timeously to the genocide in Rwanda. It has always been, only this time due to the lack of real politk from the five veto-wielding powers and mainly due to the globalization of the media knew the truth, that the king was naked, which This stark reality is that the Security Council has no inherent power, not a great power but depends on the balance of power among the five powers with veto, ie the global power structure
Never Council as requested by the Charter since 1945, was able to establish a military staff who recruit and direct their own military forces of the United Nations against an aggressor State. The United Nations was from the beginning, an organization of peace and security without bar and therefore their collective security system must comply with realpolitik to the global power structure will not be beaten.
The operation of the Security Council does not depend on its composition to be reformed but the changing structure of world power. Eight years ago that Council reform debate, the result is that nobody wants to lose their right to veto, or share it with new members. China who fought for nearly 25 years to become a permanent member with veto power between Japan will never allow the Council as a new permanent member with veto Asia and thus challenge its regional power. This is the obstacle that blocks over Security Council reform. If Japan does not come as a permanent member Asia Europe also fall outside Germany or Brazil in Latin America. The only thing possible is to increase the number of non-permanent members, but to give the Council that there are more non-permanent members that are marginal in world power.
The only way the Council works is that the unilateralism of the United Chairs is self-limiting because of its lack of efficacy. Unipolarity and unilateralism are mainly based on U.S. military power. United States with its 7 fleet and dozens of military and air bases around the world to project military power as I made no other power in the history of mankind. This power has served to change regimes in Belgrade, in Kosovo, Kabul and Baghdad, but has failed so far to be effective in governance, reconstruction and democratization of the occupied countries.
would say that American power and tyrannical Taliban can change but can not play their own society and culture. So far, this increasingly militarized power has not brought democracy and prosperity. The future remains Kosovo, Afghanistan in the hands of warlords and exporting heroin, Iraq did not come easily, looting appears to have produced more damage than bombing, its future is uncertain. The U.S. military seems to so far given no political gains victories. Moreover, economic globalization is in crisis, the global economy and the U.S. are very weak. Democracy despite being spread across the world is of very low intensity, limited to only elections. Including due to the fight against terrorism, many civil liberties have been curtailed in the United States itself.
Highlights Josehp professors Paul Kennedy and Nye, consider that the military might of the United States is not effective in addressing the challenges of the XXI century. Unable to cope with terrorism, drug trafficking, trafficking in persons, arms, money laundering, to serious environmental problems, to Aids, poverty and illegal immigration movement with great aircraft, cruise missiles, F18 and marines. Soon we will know whether the difficulties in Iraq make the United States, the Sheriff calls today alone as Professor Samuel Huntington, returns to the Security Council for support and legitimacy to promote prosperity and democracy in that country. If this happens, this is not the beginning of the end of U.S. hegemony, but only the beginning of the beginning. Hopefully this time there realpolitik among the permanent members.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion/message/15619
By: Oswaldo de Rivero
* To use the international forces need the explicit permission of the Security Council . In other words, that of the 15 Council members, a majority vote of at least 9 countries in favor and there is no dissenting vote (veto) of any of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. The only exception to this explicit permission is the use of force as a legitimate defense against an armed attack by surprise, which then exercised, must be immediately reported to the Security Council.
This is the legal-political metaphysics authorizing the use of force in international relations. I mean metaphysics because to work in the real world should not go against the current world power structure, whether this structure bipolar, unipolar. When all the politico-legal metaphysical scaffolding applies regardless of world power, the Security Council made crisis.
collective security system of the United Nations has to practice realpolitik or crumble the earthquakes that cause power politics bipolar or unipolar. During the Cold War, ie, when power was a bipolar world, the Security Council adjusted to this reality of global power, worked with realpolitik and admitted his marginality respecting the catchment areas of the two superpowers. Thus, the Soviet Union invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan and the United States intervened in Lebanon, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Grenada and Panama, without the Security Council to rule on these interventions from the United Nations Charter.
The end of the Cold War and the implosion of the USSR was a cataclysm of tectonic plates of the bipolar structure of power giving rise to the unipolar world. United States emerged as the global hegemon. Its catchment area covers the entire globe, including areas of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe, the Baltic, Central Asia and the Caucasus.
Today, the United Nations problem is that this new unipolar world power structure is more difficult to reconcile with the collective security system of the Security Council. If the bipolarity was also difficult to settle conflicts is even greater extent, with the unipolar power structure because this tends to resort to unilateralism on issues that even go beyond the issues of the Council, thus affecting all multilateral action the United Nations system.
When I finish bipolarity, naively believed that life was a new world order where work collective security system of the Security Council. This is because for the first time Council left the marginality imposed achievement of bipolarity and authorize the collective use of force against Iraq during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. However, this authorization was only possible because the United States opened its unipolar power strongly in favor of the Security Council, brewing with this power unanimity of all members to expel Iraq from Kuwait militarily. Slightly
lasted this illusion of smooth functioning of the Security Council with a unipolar structure. Indeed, the United States in 1999, supported by NATO, defied the Council, without your permission, because of opposition from Russia and China, made use of force against Serbia, bombing Belgrade and Kosovo, thus opening after the Cold War, its unilateralism against the multilateral system of collective security of the Security Council. Soon
also the unilateralism of the unipolar been felt in other areas. U.S. refusal to be controlled by the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, also refuse to be members of the International Criminal Court and requested the court immunity even against U.S. troops involved in Operation Maintenance of Peace established by the Security Council.
The unipolarity and unilateralism became doctrine when in September 2002, the United States roared to the unipolar world his new strategy. In a statement issued by the Bush administration stated that the U.S. is willing to maintain its leading power and safety of any other power in the world. The document made clear that would not allow any other power could rival U.S. military power. Washington also said the military unilateralism, proclaiming the doctrine of "pre-emptive armed attack, ie attack without being attacked, totally contrary to the collective security system of the Security Council.
The announcement of this new doctrine did nothing but exacerbate the distrust and disgust felt by France and Germany, Russia and China against unipolarity and American unilateralism. Already in 1998 the then Foreign Minister Vedrine of France Humbert had said clearly: "We can not accept a unipolar world and are fighting for a multipolar system." Also, Russian President Vladimir Putin and China's President Jiang Zemein had repeatedly stated he did not accept a unipolar system. In July 2001 Russia and China entered into a treaty which undertook to build a multipolar world.
Despite the new strategic doctrine of preventive war and that Congress had approved the war against Iraq no matter what the Security Council decides, the administration Bush, contrary to all realpolitik, gambled and appealed to the Security Council seeking a resolution that would legitimize, nothing less than a preventive war against Iraq. The United States could very well justify their unilateral pre-emptive intervention in Iraq, as they did in Kosovo. At that time legitimized their unilateral intervention by invoking the ethnic cleansing and human rights. In the case of Iraq could have invoked the defense of the authority of the Security Council because Iraq had violated the ceasefire imposed in 1991 for 12 years ten breach of Security Council resolutions asking it to disarm.
United States not only turned the Security Council, but also resorted warning that Iraq would attack even if the Council did not authorize the attack. That is, presented a draft resolution requesting authorization to use force but at the same time saying he did not need authorization! In doing so, the United States did nothing, to ask for a global referendum on United Nations for recognition as a hegemon and legitimize their unilateralism.
diplomatic
This aberration is quite contrary to realpolitik. Kissinger surely a realistic Matternich follower never would have made a move as confusing and risky to the Council. With it, the only thing that got states States was a diplomatic failure. Had to withdraw its decision to the threat of veto from France, Russia and China, as we have seen, were searching for a multipolar world.
However, neither France, Russia and China acted guided by a "realpolitik" because it sought nothing less than imposing the multipolarism through its veto at the United States. This claim was unrealistic because the Council not to formally define the structure of power unipolar or multipolar world. The stark historical reality of international relations is that power flows from global conflict, and it went, the United States attacked Iraq and returned them to demonstrate to France, Russia and China is the world's unipolar power.
Lack of realpolitik of the five permanent members with veto seriously wounded the multilateral system of collective security of the United Nations because the Security Council is not architected to support the challenge of a referendum on unipolarity or multipolarity and a diplomatic dispute unrealistic from a global hegemon and three great powers can not equal in real formal power but only by having veto.
The truth is that the Council throughout the Cold War and after it, only been able to resolve some conflicts which do not affect the structure of world power. Could not resolve the situation in Somalia, is paralyzed in Bosnia, where NATO replaced the United Nations, not act timeously to the genocide in Rwanda. It has always been, only this time due to the lack of real politk from the five veto-wielding powers and mainly due to the globalization of the media knew the truth, that the king was naked, which This stark reality is that the Security Council has no inherent power, not a great power but depends on the balance of power among the five powers with veto, ie the global power structure
Never Council as requested by the Charter since 1945, was able to establish a military staff who recruit and direct their own military forces of the United Nations against an aggressor State. The United Nations was from the beginning, an organization of peace and security without bar and therefore their collective security system must comply with realpolitik to the global power structure will not be beaten.
The operation of the Security Council does not depend on its composition to be reformed but the changing structure of world power. Eight years ago that Council reform debate, the result is that nobody wants to lose their right to veto, or share it with new members. China who fought for nearly 25 years to become a permanent member with veto power between Japan will never allow the Council as a new permanent member with veto Asia and thus challenge its regional power. This is the obstacle that blocks over Security Council reform. If Japan does not come as a permanent member Asia Europe also fall outside Germany or Brazil in Latin America. The only thing possible is to increase the number of non-permanent members, but to give the Council that there are more non-permanent members that are marginal in world power.
The only way the Council works is that the unilateralism of the United Chairs is self-limiting because of its lack of efficacy. Unipolarity and unilateralism are mainly based on U.S. military power. United States with its 7 fleet and dozens of military and air bases around the world to project military power as I made no other power in the history of mankind. This power has served to change regimes in Belgrade, in Kosovo, Kabul and Baghdad, but has failed so far to be effective in governance, reconstruction and democratization of the occupied countries.
would say that American power and tyrannical Taliban can change but can not play their own society and culture. So far, this increasingly militarized power has not brought democracy and prosperity. The future remains Kosovo, Afghanistan in the hands of warlords and exporting heroin, Iraq did not come easily, looting appears to have produced more damage than bombing, its future is uncertain. The U.S. military seems to so far given no political gains victories. Moreover, economic globalization is in crisis, the global economy and the U.S. are very weak. Democracy despite being spread across the world is of very low intensity, limited to only elections. Including due to the fight against terrorism, many civil liberties have been curtailed in the United States itself.
Highlights Josehp professors Paul Kennedy and Nye, consider that the military might of the United States is not effective in addressing the challenges of the XXI century. Unable to cope with terrorism, drug trafficking, trafficking in persons, arms, money laundering, to serious environmental problems, to Aids, poverty and illegal immigration movement with great aircraft, cruise missiles, F18 and marines. Soon we will know whether the difficulties in Iraq make the United States, the Sheriff calls today alone as Professor Samuel Huntington, returns to the Security Council for support and legitimacy to promote prosperity and democracy in that country. If this happens, this is not the beginning of the end of U.S. hegemony, but only the beginning of the beginning. Hopefully this time there realpolitik among the permanent members.
Oswaldo de Rivero
Embj. Peru to the UN
New YorAbril, 2003
New YorAbril, 2003
0 comments:
Post a Comment