Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

Conclusion: The World We Want

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic

Moving Forward

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-03-18 13:34:32

"Will the UN make the difficult decision of condemning the US and taking out punitive actions against "

I think this will determine if the UN is still worth something, if the UN comdemns the Iraqi invasion (since its illegal in the current context) i think the UN will save face, otherwise...

Even though the gesture would be entirely symbolic (no one in their right mind would actually enforce this), it would send a strong message
that the UN is still relevant...

We will see in the next few days... if Article 377 is invoked.

Reply to this message

Show in topic

Moving Forward

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-18 16:05:43

I think the argument was made last night by Bush that there are outstanding resolutions that give the US the right to apply force in this instance.

I wonder why the UN did not make the difficult decision and punish NATO, INCLUDING CANADA, for bombing Serbia.

Reply to this message

Moving Forward

Contributor: Fleabag

Date: 2003-03-18 21:08:59

If the UN sanctions force to solve all outstanding resolutions the world would be in flames. The US only refers to the resolutions it wants the world to see, not the ones against them or their allies.

Reply to this message

Moving Forward

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-03-19 07:43:21

Are there gross basic humans rights violations currently in Iraq?? Its a brutal regime... I'm not saying the contrary, but currently, basic rights are not violated (freedom is not present either though). The UN should have acted in the '80's when Saddam used chemical weapons, and they did not. In that case, i would have gladly accepted your point of view. There's a big problem in the UN, i never denied this.

Serbia, on the other hand was using Genocide at the time... Legally speaking i do not know, did the UN Security Council actually veto the use of Force? Or was it only an absence of a majority? Was it brought to the UN General Assembly? I really need more information on this? Can you give me more information?

The word 'punish' is a bit strong don't you think? I never wrote that (If i did i was wrong), i meant condemn, which is only symbolic (much like everything else at the UN), and if Serbia was bombed illegaly, then i might think you are right that we should also be condemned, but I don't know the facts here... What happened with the vote? Was article 377 used?

Reply to this message

Moving Forward

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-03-20 13:25:53

You are right, the Kosovo attack was not sanctioned by the UN, but it DID fall in the Humanitarian Intervention , as described in the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty document i already talked to you about... So its a non-issue, but since the Intervention Statute has not been approved by the UN in their charter, legally speaking we did not respect international law, and the Security Council should have been convened and a resolution condemning our acts should have been put forward (even though it would have been vetoed by the US, France and the UK)...

So my point of view is consistent across all cases. The rule of law must be prevail.

Reply to this message

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic