Response to Syria


The concept of the Security Council system is that the maintenance of peace would be in the hands of the five great powers as they then were in 1945. The former League of Nations was closer to what you are suggesting and that failed to keep the peace once it was breached by Italy, Germany and Japan. It was never intended that a simple plurality of nations in the General Assembly would have ultimate legal power to bind the great powers collectively or one of them against their will. To say that the UN is only relevant when carrying out the policies of the weakest rather than the stronger seems a subjective value judgement is confusing the principle of collective security guarantees. Security Council resolution 666 condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait of August 1990. Was this irrelevant and in what sense? What is happening in relation to Syria is holding that regime to account, with an implied threat of sanctions, for non-cooperation with the Rafik Al Hariri assassination investigation. This is a policy for a peaceful (or antiwar if you like) settlement of the issue that ought to be supported. It is not a policy for the facilitation of a US attack on Syria no matter how often this is repeated. Finally the US cannot issue a diktat to the UN rather it must table or support proposals.

Created By: Pat Nolan