Ciao!: A roll of the dice

A roll of the dice

03.20.2003

People are still commenting on the fact that the UN Security did not vote for an Iraq war. Their conclusion is, of course, that the US-led coalition is acting w/o UN approval and violation of the wishes of the Security Council. That's not quite true.

I won't comment on the question of polling data suggesting support (or lack of support) for a war. On the one hand, polls are tricky things and can mean many different things. But, most importantly, appealing to the morality of a policy based on popular opinion is known as an "ad populum" logical fallacy. Policies should be judged by evidence, not their popularity. Just because something's popular, that doesn't make it right.

I won't give the usual pat answers about how S.C. 1441 authorized the use of force. Or how the 1991 Gulf War never really ended; the ceasefire was contingent on immediate and complete Iraqi disarmament and cooperation. Instead, I want to point to something even more obvious.

While the council didn't vote for military action, it most certainly didn't vote against it either. If international law is dictated by Security Council resolutions, then international law is profoundly silent.

If the war is illegal (or immoral) because France would have vetoed the resolution. Then the war is not illegal (or immoral) because the US would veto any resolution to condemn the war. Catch-22. So much for moral positions dictated by Security Council resolutions.

Another appeal is to the fact that the US-UK-Spain resolution didn't have the required nine votes needed to pass the resolution - even if France (or Russia or China) hadn't vetoed but merely abstained. There's truth to that. And it's difficult to know if Powell is right when he believed that - prior to France announcing its veto - the resolution had as many as ten votes. The argument is that once the resolution was going to fail (w/ a veto), then it became easier for fence-sitters to vote "no" - they might lose political capital by voting "yes" and the gain very little (the resolution would still fail).

However, it's a dangerous thing to place too much faith in the Security Council as the arbiter of UN morality. It is, after all, a body of only fifteen countries. Five are permanent members, the remaining ten can be a crapshoot.

So far, we know that the resolution had four votes: US, UK, Spain, Bulgaria. Imagine, however, if some different countries were on the council: Kuwait on the council, instead of Syria (one more "yes"). Czech Republic instead of Germany (another "yes"). El Salvador instead of Mexico (another "yes"). Eritrea instead of Angola (another "yes"). Australia instead of Guinea (another "yes"). Uzbekistan instead of Pakistan (another "yes"). There are plenty of other examples. It could easily have happened; it was just a roll of the dice.

The bottom line is that the Security Council is a political body, not a moral one. I'm not saying that the council is immoral, only that it's decisions are political - giving them the weight of moral dictums is dangerous. The Security Council is not the College of Cardinals.

Posted by Miguel at 03:02 PM

Comments

Imagine Belgium instead of Bulgaria, (another "no"), Sweden instead of Spain (another "no"). This discussion is pointless, Miguel, because it asks what could have been and not what was. And we'll never know what would have happened.

Posted by: Melli at March 20, 2003 08:11 PM

Exactly! We don't know what would've happend, since no vote was called. So the US isn't acting against any Security Council decision, since the vote is by defintion a non-decisions.

My point was that using the siting SC members as a benchmark is problematic, since they're only there by chance. Bottom line: the SC is not a high moral authority, it's a political body. You've not addressed that point.

Posted by: Miguel at March 20, 2003 08:30 PM

It wasn't my point to begin with. I wanted you to look at the stance of the current SC members. Not argue that if there would be other members maybe they would have approved it. Maybe they would have not. Fact is ... it is questionable if the current SC had voted for action like this or looked into other options. And if you look at permanent members ... 3 out of 5 of those countries spoke out against war.
I never claimed the U.N. was a moral authority.

Posted by: Melli at March 20, 2003 11:54 PM

Hey Miguel,
We only met once at the Freeze-O-ween party, but I already consider you part of the Armada of Micah's Friends. We see eye to eye as far as I can tell on this whole war/Iraq/clusterfuck thing, but I still wanted to send a note of love to ya from Merrillville. Hope the events of today don't lead to hell on earth or anything. Much love. Keep writing.

Love,
Micah

Posted by: Micah at March 20, 2003 11:54 PM