They didnât need a veto, they secured a vote. By complying. To the sanctions. Because they worked. If anything, had the sanctions still been in place when Trump first won, I would expect a US veto on lifting them.
Today, since they are - as I said - a key enabler for Russiaâs war ambitions, they would be protected.
[âŠ]
And that is still correct.
No it is not.
Youâre equivocating real, actual vetos on real, actual resolution proposals with vetos you imagine would be invoked to resolutions you imagine would be proposed. You keep making arguments that donât exist outside your head. And possibly Congress.
For example prosecution for killing its own citizens en masse a couple of weeks ago for daring to stand up against the ongoing oppression by the regime.
Oh? So not the war? Youâre arguing for illegal war because veto umbrellas make the UN useless, but even in your imagination the veto is used against sanctions, instead of a war?
Who said otherwise?
Uh⊠something something western world, something holy crusade, blabla Amalek, blablabla red heifer, blablabla Jesus coming back. Itâs been all over the news recently, but various rephrasings and dogwhistles were around for decades. Hell, now that I think about it, Iranâs theocracy being sclerotic and unpopular might even be a point in Iranâs favour.
being so hellbent on annihilating another country, that makes that regime a strain on the international community.
See, this is another one of those equivocations: This entire phrase applies a lot more directly to Israel than it does to Iran. Iran makes a lot of noise, but I donât remember them assassinating Israeli officials or bombing Israel out of the blue, and when the international community gets serious, they are willing to make concessions. Israel, on the other hand, is under cover of more than two dozen SC vetos, and currently arguably engaged in an ethnic cleansing, a genocide, and an illegal war of aggression two, actually, they just invaded Lebanon. Again.
How good does that work if thereâs an elite caste that can veto whatever goes against their will? How can you get countries to abide by the rules if these rules only apply to certain countries?
That is an excellent question, except it would seem to basically only apply to US and Israel. Maaaybe the NorKs. Past Apartheit, Russia was by and large covering itâs own ass, and China was mostly backing Russia up, presumably to fuck with the yanks. America is the only one with a problem child that needs constant bailing out of juvie. So, really, the question is less about the UN, and more âhow do we get the US to either reign in their brat, or stop covering for itâ.
Where? Did the UN recently decided something grave against Iran?
They didnât need a veto, they secured a vote. By complying. To the sanctions. Because they worked.
Sanctions that only came into place because the failed to gain the favour of a veto power.
You keep making arguments that donât exist outside your head.
Are you seriously believing that Russia today would again allow the UN to sanction Iran and would not exert its veto? Honestly?
Oh? So not the war?
What? Why would Iran be sanctioned for this war??? Iran has its own actions to be sanctioned for, but this war isnât one of them.
Itâs been all over the news recently
Iâd love to see âthe newsâ that call for a map without Iran as a country.
Iran makes a lot of noise
Since day one of their existence as an âIslamic Republicâ, they threatened Israel with annihilation. A threat that Israel knows only too well, after having to fight a war against all neighbours in the moment of founding of their state. I canât blame them that they want to take that ânoiseâ seriously. It is a core objective of the IRI to destroy Israel. Not Netanyahuâs Israel, but simply Israel. They donât want a Jewish state in âtheir neighbourhoodâ. Israel, in turn, is capable of coexisting with Muslim countries around it if they accept that there will be an Israel around. Is Iran ready to accept that?
That is an excellent question, except it would seem to basically only apply to US and Israel.
Yes, yes. I know. We canât talk about anything without immediately focussing on US and Israel. If youâre too fixated on these two to be able to discuss a broader picture, thatâs fine. But then, thatâll be a very limited discussion to be had with you.
To conclude and loop back to where we actually started here: thereâs a fundamental flaw in the principle of the UN. The veto powers created a system in which they are able to protect them and their proteges from whatever unwanted consequences theyâd have to face. This effectively paralyses the UN, and especially the application of international law. A commenter wanted to criticise NATOâs actions in Yugoslavia, as they werenât backed by an UN resolution. Although ethnic cleansing was going on.
You said:
But if you both accept that a veto blocks an intervention if backed by firepower, but doesnât if not, then the vote itself is just window dressing and all youâre left is might makes right.
The veto would not necessarily block the intervention. It would only block the legitimisation by the UN of said intervention. The veto can stop the work of the UN, but not of the member states. As happened here: the UN was too paralysed to react to the human rights violations, so the NATO states took it in their own hands. That isnât ideal but a direct consequence of the flawed architecture of the UN thanks to the veto the nuclear global elite gave themselves. And now, everyone is free to pick a side to stand: either saying that it is more important to end human rights violations, even if the body responsible to approve that is incapable of doing so - or saying that it is more important to strictly stick to the rules, even if that means idly watching ethnic cleansing when the responsible body has been deliberately put in standstill by other members affiliated with the perpetrator.
Where? Did the UN recently decided something grave against Iran?
recently
The fact that youâre trying to weasel out of the obvious answer tells me you know youâre wrong. So in lieu of falling for it, Did Russiarecentlyveto something grave against Iran?
failed to gain the favour of a veto power.
This is an argument that only makes sense if rely on a veto to cover your ass. Which, as we have seen, only works if youâre a permanent member. Or Israel, apparently.
Are you seriously believing that Russia today would again allow the UN to sanction Iran and would not exert its veto? Honestly?
Yes I am. They have before, and will again. If anything, I would expect it to let the sanctions happen, then break them, then veto being punished for breaking them. Fits the MO much better.
Iâd love to see âthe newsâ that call for a map without Iran as a country.
Israel, in turn, is capable of coexisting with Muslim countries around it if they accept that there will be an Israel around. Is Iran ready to accept that?
As long as the country isnât Palestine.
We canât talk about anything without immediately focussing on US and Israel.
We can, but your core argument hangs on a great power covering an ally with a veto no matter what, and we currently only have one actual example of it happening.
The veto would not necessarily block the intervention. It would only block the legitimisation by the UN of said intervention.
This is an excellent point! A country can, absolutely, act without UN legitimacy, and âget things doneâ. But it doesnât just strip legitimacy from itself, it also strips it from the UN. Which then leads to geopolicy understanders online to call the UN useless, despite all the useful stuff it does.
You can choose yours, Iâve chosen mine.
I know. And what you have chosen is âMight makes rightâ. I can understand why, itâs an appealing fantasy, itâs why Dirty Harry is popular, but the flip side is that if you declare the rules donât apply to you, you canât object to everyone else doing it, whether itâs Russia invading Ukraine, or China invading Taiwan. Or, in fact, any of the Arab states attacking Israel.
What are you on about? Iâve always been talking about recently, status quo, today. The only one trying to make this into a historical competition on who vetoed for whom how many times is you. Iâve been trying to make that clear repeatedly. My problem isnât who vetoed for whom but the possibility to veto at all, as thatâs the core problem. If you want to discuss something else, fine. But thatâs not the discussion Iâm having here.
This is an argument that only makes sense if rely on a veto to cover your ass.
Why? Please elaborate.
Yes I am. They have before, and will again.
They have at a time when Iran was internationally isolated and Russia was in (superficially) good terms with the âWestâ. Now, Russia is also isolated, in bad terms with the âWestâ and dependent on Iranâs support for maintaining their war machine. Russia has too little allies left to be able to afford losing another, if they can help with as little effort as using their veto power. Thatâs the arguments I can provide for my opinion that they wouldnât let Iran be punished by the UN. What are yours for your point of view?
As long as the country isnât Palestine.
True as of today. But in Israel, the people can vote for another direction entirely and have the possibility to rid themselves of unpopular Netanyahu. In Iran, the political cornerstones are set since 1979 and the will of the people for change was just brutally slaughtered. The question remains: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
But it doesnât just strip legitimacy from itself, it also strips it from the UN. Which then leads to geopolicy understanders online to call the UN useless, despite all the useful stuff it does.
But thatâs a UN problem and not a âpersons that call that outâ problem. After WW2, there was the understandable desire to create a platform where international topics could be resolved in peace. Good idea! However, the big players didnât trust each other and also didnât want to be subjugated to anything else than their own free decisions. Thatâs also understandable. But a true and fair international platform issues the same rights to all its members. Which the UN doesnât, so thatâs an elemental design flaw it will always stumble upon.
And what you have chosen is âMight makes rightâ.
No. Because I donât advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases. I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly.
Why should people let themselves get killed just because the UN is incapable of fixing its design flaws?
you canât object to everyone else doing it, whether itâs Russia invading Ukraine, or China invading Taiwan. Or, in fact, any of the Arab states attacking Israel
Letâs not pretend they care at all, even today. Russia invaded Ukraine although everyone knew there was not justification behind it whatsoever, besides the wish of a small, ageing man to be the one in the history books that restored the âlost empireâ. Similarly, China doesnât care at all if the world thinks thereâs any justification to them trying to annex Taiwan, when the sole reason theyâll try it is petty-minded revenge and the inability to accept a âChineseâ country outside their oppressive control. All these examples of yours are already operating under the principle âmight makes rightâ.
No you havenât. Youâve been talking in hypotheticals. If you have a non-imaginary example, Iâd love to hear it.
Why? Please elaborate.
Because normal countries donât see the veto as a first line of defense. In fact, normal countries donât see the veto at all. SC vetos are not, as you present it, normal procedure for normal countries. Hell, even permanent SC members donât just plop vetos willy-nilly. Seeing the veto as the first, last, and only option requires a very specific mindset, that is simply not how countries operate. Well, except forâŠ
They have at a time when Iran was internationally isolated and Russia was in (superficially) good terms with the âWestâ. Now, Russia is also isolated, in bad terms with the âWestâ and dependent on Iranâs support for maintaining their war machine. Russia has too little allies left to be able to afford losing another, if they can help with as little effort as using their veto power. Thatâs the arguments I can provide for my opinion that they wouldnât let Iran be punished by the UN. What are yours for your point of view?
This isnât an argument, itâs an opinion. Itâs not unreasonable, but it goes against both prior and current behavior of the parties involved.
True as of today. But in Israel, the people can vote for another direction entirely and have the possibility to rid themselves of unpopular Netanyahu. In Iran, the political cornerstones are set since 1979 and the will of the people for change was just brutally slaughtered. The question remains: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
Once again, youâre criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they havenât actually done, but credit Israel for hypothetically being capable of deciding not to do the destruction they currently literally are doing. Youâre doing the thing again.
No. Because I donât advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases.
Yes you do, you just donât realize it, because you think right isnât made by might if itâs made by might you agree with.
Letâs not pretend they care at all, even today. Russia invaded Ukraine although everyone knew there was not justification behind it whatsoever, besides the wish of a small, ageing man to be the one in the history books that restored the âlost empireâ. Similarly, China doesnât care at all if the world thinks thereâs any justification to them trying to annex Taiwan, when the sole reason theyâll try it is petty-minded revenge and the inability to accept a âChineseâ country outside their oppressive control. All these examples of yours are already operating under the principle âmight makes rightâ.
Exactly! Letâs not pretend they care at all, even today. US invaded Iraq although everyone knew⊠And since you agree that laws are stupid and working through the system to get what you want is a waste of time, then clearly youâre fine with them following the precedent.
Exactly! Because, Iâll repeat it again once more, my problem is not who vetoed when for whom specifically but that it is possible to veto at all for a certain group of countries. Got it?
that is simply not how countries operate. Well, except forâŠ
Yea⊠no. See attached the number of vetoes. Reality paints a different picture.
but it goes against both prior and current behavior of the parties involved.
It doesnât go against current and I explained why I expect different than prior behaviour. And you?
Once again, youâre criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they havenât actually done
No. Iran has supported, organised, financed terror against Israel for a very very long time and the destruction stemming from that is very real and palpable. Iâm criticising Iran for a goal they openly state and which they actively try to achieve. When it comes to Israel, these citizens donât have the hypothetical but very real option to vote and change politics accordingly. Opposed to the Mullahs, Netanyahu actually has to fear public opinion and the political opposition, as there, it can actually put him out of office. The Mullahs will just shoot the people in the streets instead. But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
Yes you do, you just donât realize it, because you think right isnât made by might if itâs made by might you agree with.
I donât. I told you before: I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly.
And since you agree that laws are stupid and working through the system to get what you want is a waste of time, then clearly youâre fine with them following the precedent.
No. I said that the examples you provided all already operate under the principle âmight makes rightâ. What youâre trying to sell here to me and yourself as a reaction to the - of course! - initial source of injustice that is the âeternal enemy USAâ, has in fact always been the case. Have a skim through the linked list of issued vetoes. Youâll be surprised how blatantly calculating and motivated by their own goods these votes were right from the start. And which side especially used the veto in that first period.
Yea⊠no. See attached the number of vetoes. Reality paints a different picture.
Ah, youâre finally looking stuff up. Fantastic. I donât know what picture you think the graph paints, but Iâll take the win.
It doesnât go against current
Yes it does. There was no veto for sanctions. Thatâs the current. Youâre doing it again.
No. Iran has supported, organised, financed terror against Israel for a very very long time and the destruction stemming from that is very real and palpable. Iâm criticising Iran for a goal they openly state and which they actively try to achieve.
Thatâs exactly it - I donât see them trying to achieve it. I could be wrong, but I donât even remember them attacking Israel directly at all before a couple of years ago. Youâre doing it again.
When it comes to Israel, these citizens donât have the hypothetical but very real option to vote and change politics accordingly. Opposed to the Mullahs, Netanyahu actually has to fear public opinion and the political opposition, as there, it can actually put him out of office. The Mullahs will just shoot the people in the streets instead. But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
They have the option, yet the action is still hypothetical. Youâre doing it again.
I donât. I told you before: I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly.
And who makes the right decides what counts as exigent circumstances? Thatâs right. The mighty.
No. I said that the examples you provided all already operate under the principle âmight makes rightâ. What youâre trying to sell here to me and yourself as a reaction to the - of course! - initial source of injustice that is the âeternal enemy USAâ, has in fact always been the case. Have a skim through the linked list of issued vetoes. Youâll be surprised how blatantly calculating and motivated by their own goods these votes were right from the start. And which side especially used the veto in that first period.
âŠWait, you think thereâs such a thing as an initial source of injustice? And you think Iâm arguing itâs America? Christ on a stick, every fucking thing is a team sport to you people. Though I shouldnât be surprised, you are after all arguing that breaking the laws is good when the good guys do it. What Iâm trying to sell - of course! - here is that either there are laws, or there are no laws. If you believe itâs acceptable to discard law where it hobbles you, then youâre arguing that itâs acceptable for anyone to discard law where it hobbles them. And when told this is what âmight makes rightâ is, your reaction - of course! - is âWe donât do that, also, everyone does that!â. Which is why youâre blaming Iran for things Israel does, because âeveryone does thatâ so they must do it too, and then absolving Israel for things they are doing, because âwe donât do thatâ, so itâs clearly a fluke.
I could be wrong, but I donât even remember them attacking Israel directly at all before a couple of years ago.
Well, you will know why you sneaked in âdirectlyâ here. Iran is the main sponsor of the terrorist groups exerting violence against Israel for decades. It doesnât matter if they use the hands of others to harm their enemy. But Iâm sure we actually both know that, so whatâs there left to say.
But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
And who makes the right decides what counts as exigent circumstances? Thatâs right. The mighty.
As has been the case all along. Your point being?
Wait, you think thereâs such a thing as an initial source of injustice?
I absolutely donât. Do you?
every fucking thing is a team sport to you people.
There has been only one person trying to drag the whole discussion into a competition between Israel/US and Iran/Russia. And that wasnât me. In fact, Iâve tried to tell you numerous times that I donât care at all about who did what when but only about the underlying mechanisms that allow this behaviour - by both teams! Iâm under the strong impression that you are getting really emotional about points you read into my words but which I didnât make at all and hence this is a discussion where weâre talking at cross-purposes.
Check out the attached link to the source, that should make it clearer what the graph is showing.
I know what itâs showing, but âActually, Russia does veto more!â isnât the interesting part.
Well, you will know why you sneaked in âdirectlyâ here. Iran is the main sponsor of the terrorist groups exerting violence against Israel for decades. It doesnât matter if they use the hands of others to harm their enemy. But Iâm sure we actually both know that, so whatâs there left to say.
I didnât sneak it in, I wrote âdirectlyâ because Israel has attacked Iran directly, and repeatedly. It very much does matter who pulls the trigger. Terror groups are not UN members.
But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
Frankly, I think they already have accepted it, and thatâs the big reason theyâre being as measured as they have. There were attempts to destroy Israel before, some came pretty damn close, but Iran wasnât involved in any of them, I donât think, and they all stopped when Israel got nukes. Itâs politically unacceptable for Iran to say it out loud, but they have the full triad now. I believe the motivation for Iran even considering a nuclear program is precisely the fact that theyâre facing a foe they canât destroy, and donât trust to keep a peace, so their approach is to try and keep the conflict from boiling over.
As has been the case all along. Your point being?
So, now you put together a very interesting picture here. You âcan accept [âŠ] member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own handsâ, and that âexigent circumstancesâ is defined by the mighty, âAs has been the case all alongâ. Therefore, you can accept that the mighty decide when matters are to be taken into their own hands, and therefore, you do, in fact, âcan acceptâ might to make right. But you also âdonât advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleasesâ, so you accept might to make right sometimes, but other times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. Hm. Have you ever encountered the term âCrooked Timber Conservativeâ?
I absolutely donât. Do you?
Fuck no. There is a web of triggers and precedents, but thereâs no head vampire everything traces back to. Evil is an emergent phenomenon, not a river with a source.
There has been only one person trying to drag the whole discussion into a competition between Israel/US and Iran/Russia. And that wasnât me. In fact, Iâve tried to tell you numerous times that I donât care at all about who did what when but only about the underlying mechanisms that allow this behaviour - by both teams! Iâm under the strong impression that you are getting really emotional about points you read into my words but which I didnât make at all and hence this is a discussion where weâre talking at cross-purposes.
I believe you were the one who brought up the comparison of Iran and Russia, and Israel and the US. I just ran with it. And itâs not a competition, but a comparison. Time and time again, I see arguments made by what Iâm sure are people who consider themselves egalitarian, that basically boil down to âthe good guys should just kill all the bad guysâ, and I find the shortest, simplest way to throw a wrench in this mindset is to flip the positions and see if they recognize what theyâre doing. This either gets peopleâs gears going, or devolves into the âNo you donât get it, Iâm a Good Person.â meme, which is always funny.
The second, broader point, to put it plainly: Either there are laws, or there are no laws. And if there are no laws, then might makes right. And I believe strongly that having laws is wildly preferable.
If you will forgive a history lesson to point out a few highlights, ever since war got too expensive to be profitable, countries went to great effort to prevent it, or at least minimize it. After the 30 Years War, the powers that be effectively invented the modern state. After the Big One, they effectively invented the international community. Then the Other Big One happened, they went to troubleshoot the problem, and what they settled on as a solution is honestly kinda interesting. In essence, the vast majority of states like working together. Or, at the very least, they prefer it to war. This is to be expected, this is normal, this is how humans are. Those that arenât willing are mostly just stubborn, and can be incentivized to compromise, usually through sanctions and other pressure tactics. For those who genuinely refuse to play nice, the UN solution is to force compliance. However, even putting aside the âfucking for virginityâ paradox, the first time the UN enforced their will some 70 million people died, so this isnât to be done lightly. The answer we ended up with is the GA, the SC, and the veto: the GA to be used for negotiations, when those fail, the SC will assist with coercion, and, if nothing works, move to enforcement. However, to prevent enforcement turning into Another Other Big One, the major powers were given the veto, to block actions that would end with them fighting eachother. This may sound ridiculous looking at what peacekeeping looks like now, but I remind you the UN police action know as the Korean War ended with some 3mil. dead.
And if youâll forgive a games lesson, the reason vetos are such a popular tool in system design is that theyâre inherently reactive and limited: you canât force a thing done, just prevent it. For example, a veto can prevent the UN from officially declaring sanctions that all members would need to follow, but it canât stop individual members from imposing them - in theory, this is the approach to be taken when a veto power is stonewalling action, and if it isnât, then the implication is the community consensus on what is right isnât really there, and either is preferable to a conflict between veto powers. The system is stable as long as youâre not allowed to cheat: If a country breaks the law and gets away with it, the other countries will rightfully wonder how protected they are by law. Worse yet, if a country breaks the law, then hides under a veto to get away with it, the veto itself is still the same as a regular veto stonewall, but instead of freezing an issue or kicking the can down the road, it has turned into an âI can do what i wantâ card. If the lawbreaking continues, and thereâs no response, countries will eventually decide there are no laws and go rogue, until theyâre either brought back in line or the line disappears. It wonât happen instantly, but every time it happens the community gets a little bit closer to falling apart. And if it does, youâre back to might-makes-right, at least until another war reminds everyone why we made the system in the first place.
The graph you posted is interesting, but not for the reason you think. What that graph shows is the number of times a veto power announced to the world âI find this decision, that the majority of the council agrees with, so unacceptable that I am considering going to war over this!â. What the red on that graph tell me is that instead of one veto power being outvoted and fighting a delaying action against decisions everyone else agrees with, we now have a situation of the international community facing at least two veto powers wilding out. This is not good.
Itâs why I take a dim view of âyes, itâs illegal, but itâs the right thing to doâ. Itâs also why I have more patience with countries that operate by supporting their enemiesâ enemies, instead of blowing up embassies and murdering negotiators outright. And, honestly, itâs why Iâm a lot less worried when a country goes to war and gets kicked off of swift, instead of getting a lukewarm âwell, democracy, his own people, R2P, nationbuildingâ. Which I now realize is also âyes, itâs illegal, but itâs the right thing to doâ.
Which, as we can plainly see, they are not.
They didnât need a veto, they secured a vote. By complying. To the sanctions. Because they worked. If anything, had the sanctions still been in place when Trump first won, I would expect a US veto on lifting them.
No it is not.
Youâre equivocating real, actual vetos on real, actual resolution proposals with vetos you imagine would be invoked to resolutions you imagine would be proposed. You keep making arguments that donât exist outside your head. And possibly Congress.
Oh? So not the war? Youâre arguing for illegal war because veto umbrellas make the UN useless, but even in your imagination the veto is used against sanctions, instead of a war?
Uh⊠something something western world, something holy crusade, blabla Amalek, blablabla red heifer, blablabla Jesus coming back. Itâs been all over the news recently, but various rephrasings and dogwhistles were around for decades. Hell, now that I think about it, Iranâs theocracy being sclerotic and unpopular might even be a point in Iranâs favour.
See, this is another one of those equivocations: This entire phrase applies a lot more directly to Israel than it does to Iran. Iran makes a lot of noise, but I donât remember them assassinating Israeli officials or bombing Israel out of the blue, and when the international community gets serious, they are willing to make concessions. Israel, on the other hand, is under cover of more than two dozen SC vetos, and currently arguably engaged in an ethnic cleansing, a genocide, and an
illegal war of aggressiontwo, actually, they just invaded Lebanon. Again.That is an excellent question, except it would seem to basically only apply to US and Israel. Maaaybe the NorKs. Past Apartheit, Russia was by and large covering itâs own ass, and China was mostly backing Russia up, presumably to fuck with the yanks. America is the only one with a problem child that needs constant bailing out of juvie. So, really, the question is less about the UN, and more âhow do we get the US to either reign in their brat, or stop covering for itâ.
Where? Did the UN recently decided something grave against Iran?
Sanctions that only came into place because the failed to gain the favour of a veto power.
Are you seriously believing that Russia today would again allow the UN to sanction Iran and would not exert its veto? Honestly?
What? Why would Iran be sanctioned for this war??? Iran has its own actions to be sanctioned for, but this war isnât one of them.
Iâd love to see âthe newsâ that call for a map without Iran as a country.
Since day one of their existence as an âIslamic Republicâ, they threatened Israel with annihilation. A threat that Israel knows only too well, after having to fight a war against all neighbours in the moment of founding of their state. I canât blame them that they want to take that ânoiseâ seriously. It is a core objective of the IRI to destroy Israel. Not Netanyahuâs Israel, but simply Israel. They donât want a Jewish state in âtheir neighbourhoodâ. Israel, in turn, is capable of coexisting with Muslim countries around it if they accept that there will be an Israel around. Is Iran ready to accept that?
Yes, yes. I know. We canât talk about anything without immediately focussing on US and Israel. If youâre too fixated on these two to be able to discuss a broader picture, thatâs fine. But then, thatâll be a very limited discussion to be had with you.
To conclude and loop back to where we actually started here: thereâs a fundamental flaw in the principle of the UN. The veto powers created a system in which they are able to protect them and their proteges from whatever unwanted consequences theyâd have to face. This effectively paralyses the UN, and especially the application of international law. A commenter wanted to criticise NATOâs actions in Yugoslavia, as they werenât backed by an UN resolution. Although ethnic cleansing was going on.
You said:
The veto would not necessarily block the intervention. It would only block the legitimisation by the UN of said intervention. The veto can stop the work of the UN, but not of the member states. As happened here: the UN was too paralysed to react to the human rights violations, so the NATO states took it in their own hands. That isnât ideal but a direct consequence of the flawed architecture of the UN thanks to the veto the nuclear global elite gave themselves. And now, everyone is free to pick a side to stand: either saying that it is more important to end human rights violations, even if the body responsible to approve that is incapable of doing so - or saying that it is more important to strictly stick to the rules, even if that means idly watching ethnic cleansing when the responsible body has been deliberately put in standstill by other members affiliated with the perpetrator.
You can choose yours, Iâve chosen mine.
The fact that youâre trying to weasel out of the obvious answer tells me you know youâre wrong. So in lieu of falling for it, Did Russia recently veto something grave against Iran?
This is an argument that only makes sense if rely on a veto to cover your ass. Which, as we have seen, only works if youâre a permanent member. Or Israel, apparently.
Yes I am. They have before, and will again. If anything, I would expect it to let the sanctions happen, then break them, then veto being punished for breaking them. Fits the MO much better.
Oh, weâll get there, donât you worryâŠ
As long as the country isnât Palestine.
We can, but your core argument hangs on a great power covering an ally with a veto no matter what, and we currently only have one actual example of it happening.
This is an excellent point! A country can, absolutely, act without UN legitimacy, and âget things doneâ. But it doesnât just strip legitimacy from itself, it also strips it from the UN. Which then leads to geopolicy understanders online to call the UN useless, despite all the useful stuff it does.
I know. And what you have chosen is âMight makes rightâ. I can understand why, itâs an appealing fantasy, itâs why Dirty Harry is popular, but the flip side is that if you declare the rules donât apply to you, you canât object to everyone else doing it, whether itâs Russia invading Ukraine, or China invading Taiwan. Or, in fact, any of the Arab states attacking Israel.
What are you on about? Iâve always been talking about recently, status quo, today. The only one trying to make this into a historical competition on who vetoed for whom how many times is you. Iâve been trying to make that clear repeatedly. My problem isnât who vetoed for whom but the possibility to veto at all, as thatâs the core problem. If you want to discuss something else, fine. But thatâs not the discussion Iâm having here.
Why? Please elaborate.
They have at a time when Iran was internationally isolated and Russia was in (superficially) good terms with the âWestâ. Now, Russia is also isolated, in bad terms with the âWestâ and dependent on Iranâs support for maintaining their war machine. Russia has too little allies left to be able to afford losing another, if they can help with as little effort as using their veto power. Thatâs the arguments I can provide for my opinion that they wouldnât let Iran be punished by the UN. What are yours for your point of view?
True as of today. But in Israel, the people can vote for another direction entirely and have the possibility to rid themselves of unpopular Netanyahu. In Iran, the political cornerstones are set since 1979 and the will of the people for change was just brutally slaughtered. The question remains: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
But thatâs a UN problem and not a âpersons that call that outâ problem. After WW2, there was the understandable desire to create a platform where international topics could be resolved in peace. Good idea! However, the big players didnât trust each other and also didnât want to be subjugated to anything else than their own free decisions. Thatâs also understandable. But a true and fair international platform issues the same rights to all its members. Which the UN doesnât, so thatâs an elemental design flaw it will always stumble upon.
No. Because I donât advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases. I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly. Why should people let themselves get killed just because the UN is incapable of fixing its design flaws?
Letâs not pretend they care at all, even today. Russia invaded Ukraine although everyone knew there was not justification behind it whatsoever, besides the wish of a small, ageing man to be the one in the history books that restored the âlost empireâ. Similarly, China doesnât care at all if the world thinks thereâs any justification to them trying to annex Taiwan, when the sole reason theyâll try it is petty-minded revenge and the inability to accept a âChineseâ country outside their oppressive control. All these examples of yours are already operating under the principle âmight makes rightâ.
No you havenât. Youâve been talking in hypotheticals. If you have a non-imaginary example, Iâd love to hear it.
Because normal countries donât see the veto as a first line of defense. In fact, normal countries donât see the veto at all. SC vetos are not, as you present it, normal procedure for normal countries. Hell, even permanent SC members donât just plop vetos willy-nilly. Seeing the veto as the first, last, and only option requires a very specific mindset, that is simply not how countries operate. Well, except forâŠ
This isnât an argument, itâs an opinion. Itâs not unreasonable, but it goes against both prior and current behavior of the parties involved.
Once again, youâre criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they havenât actually done, but credit Israel for hypothetically being capable of deciding not to do the destruction they currently literally are doing. Youâre doing the thing again.
Yes you do, you just donât realize it, because you think right isnât made by might if itâs made by might you agree with.
Exactly! Letâs not pretend they care at all, even today. US invaded Iraq although everyone knew⊠And since you agree that laws are stupid and working through the system to get what you want is a waste of time, then clearly youâre fine with them following the precedent.
Exactly! Because, Iâll repeat it again once more, my problem is not who vetoed when for whom specifically but that it is possible to veto at all for a certain group of countries. Got it?
Yea⊠no. See attached the number of vetoes. Reality paints a different picture.
Source
It doesnât go against current and I explained why I expect different than prior behaviour. And you?
No. Iran has supported, organised, financed terror against Israel for a very very long time and the destruction stemming from that is very real and palpable. Iâm criticising Iran for a goal they openly state and which they actively try to achieve. When it comes to Israel, these citizens donât have the hypothetical but very real option to vote and change politics accordingly. Opposed to the Mullahs, Netanyahu actually has to fear public opinion and the political opposition, as there, it can actually put him out of office. The Mullahs will just shoot the people in the streets instead. But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
I donât. I told you before: I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly.
No. I said that the examples you provided all already operate under the principle âmight makes rightâ. What youâre trying to sell here to me and yourself as a reaction to the - of course! - initial source of injustice that is the âeternal enemy USAâ, has in fact always been the case. Have a skim through the linked list of issued vetoes. Youâll be surprised how blatantly calculating and motivated by their own goods these votes were right from the start. And which side especially used the veto in that first period.
Ah, youâre finally looking stuff up. Fantastic. I donât know what picture you think the graph paints, but Iâll take the win.
Yes it does. There was no veto for sanctions. Thatâs the current. Youâre doing it again.
Thatâs exactly it - I donât see them trying to achieve it. I could be wrong, but I donât even remember them attacking Israel directly at all before a couple of years ago. Youâre doing it again.
They have the option, yet the action is still hypothetical. Youâre doing it again.
And who
makes the rightdecides what counts as exigent circumstances? Thatâs right. The mighty.âŠWait, you think thereâs such a thing as an initial source of injustice? And you think Iâm arguing itâs America? Christ on a stick, every fucking thing is a team sport to you people. Though I shouldnât be surprised, you are after all arguing that breaking the laws is good when the good guys do it. What Iâm trying to sell - of course! - here is that either there are laws, or there are no laws. If you believe itâs acceptable to discard law where it hobbles you, then youâre arguing that itâs acceptable for anyone to discard law where it hobbles them. And when told this is what âmight makes rightâ is, your reaction - of course! - is âWe donât do that, also, everyone does that!â. Which is why youâre blaming Iran for things Israel does, because âeveryone does thatâ so they must do it too, and then absolving Israel for things they are doing, because âwe donât do thatâ, so itâs clearly a fluke.
Check out the attached link to the source, that should make it clearer what the graph is showing.
Sure! Sounds just like him. Non-stop winning.
Well, you will know why you sneaked in âdirectlyâ here. Iran is the main sponsor of the terrorist groups exerting violence against Israel for decades. It doesnât matter if they use the hands of others to harm their enemy. But Iâm sure we actually both know that, so whatâs there left to say.
But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
As has been the case all along. Your point being?
I absolutely donât. Do you?
There has been only one person trying to drag the whole discussion into a competition between Israel/US and Iran/Russia. And that wasnât me. In fact, Iâve tried to tell you numerous times that I donât care at all about who did what when but only about the underlying mechanisms that allow this behaviour - by both teams! Iâm under the strong impression that you are getting really emotional about points you read into my words but which I didnât make at all and hence this is a discussion where weâre talking at cross-purposes.
I know what itâs showing, but âActually, Russia does veto more!â isnât the interesting part.
I didnât sneak it in, I wrote âdirectlyâ because Israel has attacked Iran directly, and repeatedly. It very much does matter who pulls the trigger. Terror groups are not UN members.
Frankly, I think they already have accepted it, and thatâs the big reason theyâre being as measured as they have. There were attempts to destroy Israel before, some came pretty damn close, but Iran wasnât involved in any of them, I donât think, and they all stopped when Israel got nukes. Itâs politically unacceptable for Iran to say it out loud, but they have the full triad now. I believe the motivation for Iran even considering a nuclear program is precisely the fact that theyâre facing a foe they canât destroy, and donât trust to keep a peace, so their approach is to try and keep the conflict from boiling over.
So, now you put together a very interesting picture here. You âcan accept [âŠ] member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own handsâ, and that âexigent circumstancesâ is defined by the mighty, âAs has been the case all alongâ. Therefore, you can accept that the mighty decide when matters are to be taken into their own hands, and therefore, you do, in fact, âcan acceptâ might to make right. But you also âdonât advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleasesâ, so you accept might to make right sometimes, but other times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. Hm. Have you ever encountered the term âCrooked Timber Conservativeâ?
Fuck no. There is a web of triggers and precedents, but thereâs no head vampire everything traces back to. Evil is an emergent phenomenon, not a river with a source.
I believe you were the one who brought up the comparison of Iran and Russia, and Israel and the US. I just ran with it. And itâs not a competition, but a comparison. Time and time again, I see arguments made by what Iâm sure are people who consider themselves egalitarian, that basically boil down to âthe good guys should just kill all the bad guysâ, and I find the shortest, simplest way to throw a wrench in this mindset is to flip the positions and see if they recognize what theyâre doing. This either gets peopleâs gears going, or devolves into the âNo you donât get it, Iâm a Good Person.â meme, which is always funny.
The second, broader point, to put it plainly: Either there are laws, or there are no laws. And if there are no laws, then might makes right. And I believe strongly that having laws is wildly preferable.
If you will forgive a history lesson to point out a few highlights, ever since war got too expensive to be profitable, countries went to great effort to prevent it, or at least minimize it. After the 30 Years War, the powers that be effectively invented the modern state. After the Big One, they effectively invented the international community. Then the Other Big One happened, they went to troubleshoot the problem, and what they settled on as a solution is honestly kinda interesting. In essence, the vast majority of states like working together. Or, at the very least, they prefer it to war. This is to be expected, this is normal, this is how humans are. Those that arenât willing are mostly just stubborn, and can be incentivized to compromise, usually through sanctions and other pressure tactics. For those who genuinely refuse to play nice, the UN solution is to force compliance. However, even putting aside the âfucking for virginityâ paradox, the first time the UN enforced their will some 70 million people died, so this isnât to be done lightly. The answer we ended up with is the GA, the SC, and the veto: the GA to be used for negotiations, when those fail, the SC will assist with coercion, and, if nothing works, move to enforcement. However, to prevent enforcement turning into Another Other Big One, the major powers were given the veto, to block actions that would end with them fighting eachother. This may sound ridiculous looking at what peacekeeping looks like now, but I remind you the UN police action know as the Korean War ended with some 3mil. dead.
And if youâll forgive a games lesson, the reason vetos are such a popular tool in system design is that theyâre inherently reactive and limited: you canât force a thing done, just prevent it. For example, a veto can prevent the UN from officially declaring sanctions that all members would need to follow, but it canât stop individual members from imposing them - in theory, this is the approach to be taken when a veto power is stonewalling action, and if it isnât, then the implication is the community consensus on what is right isnât really there, and either is preferable to a conflict between veto powers. The system is stable as long as youâre not allowed to cheat: If a country breaks the law and gets away with it, the other countries will rightfully wonder how protected they are by law. Worse yet, if a country breaks the law, then hides under a veto to get away with it, the veto itself is still the same as a regular veto stonewall, but instead of freezing an issue or kicking the can down the road, it has turned into an âI can do what i wantâ card. If the lawbreaking continues, and thereâs no response, countries will eventually decide there are no laws and go rogue, until theyâre either brought back in line or the line disappears. It wonât happen instantly, but every time it happens the community gets a little bit closer to falling apart. And if it does, youâre back to might-makes-right, at least until another war reminds everyone why we made the system in the first place.
The graph you posted is interesting, but not for the reason you think. What that graph shows is the number of times a veto power announced to the world âI find this decision, that the majority of the council agrees with, so unacceptable that I am considering going to war over this!â. What the red on that graph tell me is that instead of one veto power being outvoted and fighting a delaying action against decisions everyone else agrees with, we now have a situation of the international community facing at least two veto powers wilding out. This is not good.
Itâs why I take a dim view of âyes, itâs illegal, but itâs the right thing to doâ. Itâs also why I have more patience with countries that operate by supporting their enemiesâ enemies, instead of blowing up embassies and murdering negotiators outright. And, honestly, itâs why Iâm a lot less worried when a country goes to war and gets kicked off of swift, instead of getting a lukewarm âwell, democracy, his own people, R2P, nationbuildingâ. Which I now realize is also âyes, itâs illegal, but itâs the right thing to doâ.