h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, that's going to take sometime to read. Under what conditions would you consider sanctions to have failed, anhaga?

Cuba comes to mind.


I know, those are pretty feeble sanctions endorsed by a total of about one country.

Now that I think about it, it's hard to say that they've ever failed. Did the world ever impose sanctions and then later give up on them? That would be failure, to my mind.

How about North Korea? It appears that sanctions have failed to achieve anything there...but again, we're back to the problem of how long. Given that we have an "infinite" amount of time at our disposal, we can never actually say they've failed...success is always just around the corner.

dave

Anhaga..pleased you are posting.

Sorry to swamp everyone with reading, but here's a little something else. Live from that untrustworthy, biased, right wing American media -- yes, CNN and Time --

"The conclusion is inescapable: there is nothing to be found. This means that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair made a WMD mountain out of what, at best, was a molehill. As a recent detailed report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace concludes, "Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs."

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/...ticle/0,9565,583859,00.html?cnn=yes

one of the links in the article is broken. This seems to be what it's pointing to:

http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2004WMD.htm

So, look. I somehow got a reputation for being anti-American at one point around here. Let me just say, for all of the flaws that people like to jump on, there is a proportion of American society which thinks the last three years of the world according to George is horrible. And their voice is broadcast on CNN and printed in Time. Wouldn't it be great to encourage those voices rather than jump all over Americans?

(Montana)

Sorry, simulposts. Yes Dave, the only definite answer will be a positive one. It seems that the only alternative to waiting for sanctions to work is to lose patience. If we lose patience, sanctions fail.

Loopy:

I've not stopped posting for over a year now. I'm posting pretty much every day. One just has to know where to look.

Hi anhaga -

briefly, I've gotten to this paragraph in the Commision's report:

"Last resort: Military intervention can only be justified when every non-military option for the prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis has been explored, with reasonable grounds for believing lesser measures would not have succeeded."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that sanctions have failed when they've been abandoned...that they don't inherently fail ever. But this paragraph, and the other parts that I've read seem to indicate that the commission does beleive that there are times when military action is required (sanctions are not going to work). Doesn't this imply that sanctions have "failed" even before they've been abandoned?

dave

sorry, I meant to also say that paragraph is found on page 14 of the pdf file document.

dave

yes, the Commission seems to be saying that. I, however, am not the commission.

But I understood you correctly? So you disagree with the commision then?

Sorry, I'm kind of tied up with things here for a bit. The whole point of the commission is to try to come up with a framework to deal with difficult situations like those we've been discussing here. It's an attempt to write the book so that all nations have a book to play by. There are situations that have not yet been dealt with in international law: we know how we're supposed to deal with POW's; we know we're not supposed to use chemical weapons; we know we're not supposed to gratuitously invade other countries. But we don't have plans in place to deal with governments that are unwilling or unable to protect their citizens. And we don't have agreement on who decides whether sanctions are working or not. Or do we?

Gotta go.

Simulpost. I really do have to go.

I think that in crisis situations intervention would be necessary (Rwanda, Afghanistan about ten years ago, the United States in the late 18th century). That is not a suggestion that sanctions would not ultimately work; rather, it is a suggestion that a result of waiting would be unacceptable human rights violations. And, the acceptability of the violations would be determined by the security council.

In effect, I don't disagree with the commission, only in wording.

Really Gotta Go.

Hi anhaga am i to take it that ref
"the United States in the late 18th century" is refering to [boston tea party] should the stevadores and customs inspectors todays equvilents of revenuers chuck "sanction busting imports/exports in to harbour (sanctions should be imposed as two way)into harbour.

Oh, look. Another computer. I wonder if I can use this one.



I'm afraid I'm having trouble construing you syntax, Logicus.

What I was referring to is what ever aspect of late 18th century America allows you to laugh at my joke.

The point of the commission was pragmatic: Interventions are going to be deemed necessary; they are going to happen; wouldn't it be good to have some rules governing how they happen?

Now, as far as sanctions on Iraq go: like weapons inspections, there are still de facto sanctions on Iraq. They are slightly different in their emphasis, but it's not like ordinary Iraqis are free to conduct business as usual: most urban iraqis are without water or power (according to many reports). Granted, Iraqis aren't being hauled into the street and beheaded for blah blah Saddam's moustache. But, there are certain concerns that are not really addressed. This is not to say that the ordinary Iraqis are simply being oppressed by the American occupation: there is also the continuing criminal activity and violence; the sabotage, etc. It is not as coherent a thing as sanctions were, but the results for ordinary Iraqis bear a certain similarity. In effect, the sanctions have been lifted and replaced with post-war privation. One hopes that the post-war privation does not last as long as the sanctions did.

A year of post-war weapons inspections have left the search for WMD exactly where it was before the war. Inspections were working, maybe sanctions were too. But we can't know now.

certain concerns that are not really addressed. This is not to say that the ordinary native american are simply being oppressed by the (european occupation 1776 onwards there is also the continuing criminal activity(mafia/fbi/cia ect
now since the "administration" cannot adress the above in its own country how can it exspect to do it in iraq.?

You've have a point there, ltp. I know you do.

dave, what you did to Della wasn't cool, what wraith did to sgtflipper wasn't cool. Doesn't matter what side of the argument you're on, playing immature head games isn't okay.

That said, I think anhaga has a point about sanctions. My only concern is that those sanctions weren't absolute, since humanitarian aid was allowed. The problem was, SH was taking the food and baby formula and selling it on the black market for weapons. Which basically means not only were the sanctions failing to curb SH's weaponry, they were also making it easier for him to hide his transactions.

And no, I don't have the link on hand, but I'll see if I can find it.

And please, jump on me one at a time. I have a delicate constitution!

Anhaga

I think I understand you, and what the purpose of the commision was. What I don't like is this paragraph, under "3. Right Authority", pp14-15:
"D. The Permanent Five members of the Security Council should agree not to apply their veto power, in matters where their vital state interests are not involved, to obstruct the passage of resolutions authorizing military intervention for human protection purposes for which there is otherwise majority support."

If you hate the US, you see the US wielding it's veto power irresponsibly; if you love the US, you see others using their veto power irresponsibly. This section is not going to work. I think the security council needs a serious overhaul - its decisions need to be legitimized in the eyes of the citizens of the world.

dave

This post has been removed.

I agree with what you say except for one point: I think everybody uses the veto irresponsibly. I think you will find (when you get to sections 8.28, 8.29, and 8.30, for example, which restate in part what you've already quoted) that while it may seem modest, the commission is calling for an overhaul of the Security Council. While the commission uses quite deferential language, I take the recomendations to be fundamentally constitutional. In any case, personally, I think the vetoes need to be scrapped.