CHOKE (U.S.A.) Choke 1997
11 minutes ago
Thursday, 2 June 2011
How Dean Acheson could come back to haunt Barack Obama
If there isn't a diplomatic breakthrough, Palestinians and their supporters will seek a resolution supporting recognition of a Palestinian state this fall at the United Nations. President Obama has already said that "symbolic" resolutions won't produce a Palestinian state, a statement which all but promises an American veto. The script appears to be already written. States supportive of Palestine will introduce a resolution. Washington will veto it, and everyone else will yell and scream as they always do when America uses its veto to back Israel at the UN.
But that should be the end of the story, right? After all, the United Nations Charter makes clear that both the Security Council and the General Assembly must be involved in the admission of new members to the organization. Article 4, paragraph 2 is explicit: "The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." And in the Security Council, past precedent makes clear that the veto can be used on admission decisions. In fact, both the United States and the Soviet Union used the veto frequently for this purpose in the 1950s and 1960s.
There is a wrinkle however. Palestinian diplomats are now suggesting that they'll use a tactic called "Uniting for Peace" to bypass the expected American veto in the Security Council and have the General Assembly decide the matter of Palestine's admission:
At the time, the Americans wanted some way for the United Nations to express its continued support for the UN intervention in defense of South Korea (that intervention was authorized by the Security Council while the Soviet ambassador was boycotting the body). The Americans hit upon the idea using the General Assembly and they argued that the assembly--which was, at the time, quite pro-Western--could take up matters under consideration by the Security Council when the Council was paralyzed by the veto.
It was a terrible reading of the UN Charter--and the Soviets howled--but it served the immediate purpose. The General Assembly passed a clutch of resolutions supporting the UN's efforts in Korea. Some American allies at the time, including the British, quietly warned that the tactic might come back to bite the West. But Washington wasn't listening. As U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote, "present difficulties outweighed possible future ones."
Those future difficulties came soon enough. By the 1960s, the composition of the General Assembly had changed dramatically as decolonization proceeded. What had once been a friendly forum for the United States became quite unfriendly. And so the United States quietly let the Uniting for Peace tactic drop. It's been picked up from time to time by other states --and it was last used in 1997, also on Israel-Palestine issues--but there's never been a definitive ruling on its legality or precisely how it can be used. No permanent member of the Security Council will lend support to an idea that challenges their power, and most other states have decided it's not worth challenging the Council's powers--and its powerful members-- so directly.
Some states might not mind forcing the issue now. The great majority of states resent the use of the veto power in any case, and that specific frustration could now meld with a broader discontent about the continued failure of attempts to reform the Security Council. The precedent of U.S. support for Uniting for Peace will be a useful arrow in their quiver. All the passionate American quotes about unreasonable blockages of the Security Council and the true purposes of the UN Charter will be thrown in the face of American diplomats. President Obama may soon be wishing that Acheson and the State Department's lawyers had kept their bright ideas to themselves.
But there is a small consolation for the United States: if the Palestinian statehood resolution does become a broader fight about the powers and prerogatives of the Security Council, at least Washington won't be alone.
David Bosco @'FP'
(Thanx Son#1!)
But that should be the end of the story, right? After all, the United Nations Charter makes clear that both the Security Council and the General Assembly must be involved in the admission of new members to the organization. Article 4, paragraph 2 is explicit: "The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." And in the Security Council, past precedent makes clear that the veto can be used on admission decisions. In fact, both the United States and the Soviet Union used the veto frequently for this purpose in the 1950s and 1960s.
There is a wrinkle however. Palestinian diplomats are now suggesting that they'll use a tactic called "Uniting for Peace" to bypass the expected American veto in the Security Council and have the General Assembly decide the matter of Palestine's admission:
The Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki said Wednesday that the Palestinians will seek an emergency session of the General Assembly known as "Uniting for Peace" to override any veto.Ridiculous, right? You can't rewrite the UN Charter simply by passing a resolution in the General Assembly. It is ridiculous. Unfortunately for Washington, it was the United States that thought up the Uniting for Peace resolution. It was the brainchild of U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson and his State Department lawyers, who were searching for a way around the Soviet Union's Security Council veto during the Korean War.
At the time, the Americans wanted some way for the United Nations to express its continued support for the UN intervention in defense of South Korea (that intervention was authorized by the Security Council while the Soviet ambassador was boycotting the body). The Americans hit upon the idea using the General Assembly and they argued that the assembly--which was, at the time, quite pro-Western--could take up matters under consideration by the Security Council when the Council was paralyzed by the veto.
It was a terrible reading of the UN Charter--and the Soviets howled--but it served the immediate purpose. The General Assembly passed a clutch of resolutions supporting the UN's efforts in Korea. Some American allies at the time, including the British, quietly warned that the tactic might come back to bite the West. But Washington wasn't listening. As U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote, "present difficulties outweighed possible future ones."
Those future difficulties came soon enough. By the 1960s, the composition of the General Assembly had changed dramatically as decolonization proceeded. What had once been a friendly forum for the United States became quite unfriendly. And so the United States quietly let the Uniting for Peace tactic drop. It's been picked up from time to time by other states --and it was last used in 1997, also on Israel-Palestine issues--but there's never been a definitive ruling on its legality or precisely how it can be used. No permanent member of the Security Council will lend support to an idea that challenges their power, and most other states have decided it's not worth challenging the Council's powers--and its powerful members-- so directly.
Some states might not mind forcing the issue now. The great majority of states resent the use of the veto power in any case, and that specific frustration could now meld with a broader discontent about the continued failure of attempts to reform the Security Council. The precedent of U.S. support for Uniting for Peace will be a useful arrow in their quiver. All the passionate American quotes about unreasonable blockages of the Security Council and the true purposes of the UN Charter will be thrown in the face of American diplomats. President Obama may soon be wishing that Acheson and the State Department's lawyers had kept their bright ideas to themselves.
But there is a small consolation for the United States: if the Palestinian statehood resolution does become a broader fight about the powers and prerogatives of the Security Council, at least Washington won't be alone.
David Bosco @'FP'
(Thanx Son#1!)
Simon Reynolds: Total recall - why retromania is all the rage
Has pop finally eaten itself?
There's no single thing that made me suddenly think, Hey, there's a book to be written about pop culture's chronic addiction to its own past. As the last decade unfolded, noughties pop culture became steadily more submerged in retro. Both inside music (reunion tours, revivalism, deluxe reissues, performances of classic albums in their entirety) and outside (the emergence of YouTube as a gigantic collective archive, endless movie remakes, the strange and melancholy world of retro porn), there was mounting evidence to indicate an unhealthy fixation on the bygone.But if I could point to just one release that tipped me over the edge into bemused fascination with retromania, it would be 2006's Love, the Beatles remix project. Executed by George Martin and his son Giles to accompany the Cirque du Soleil spectacular in Las Vegas, the album's 26 songs incorporated elements from 130 individual recordings, both releases and demos, by the Fab Four. Hyped as a radical reworking, Love was way more interesting to think about than to listen to (the album mostly just sounds off, similar to the way restored paintings look too bright and sharp). Love raised all kinds of questions about our compulsion to relive and reconsume pop history, about the ways we use digital technology to rearrange the past and create effects of novelty. And like Scorsese's Dylan documentary No Direction Home, Love was yet more proof of the long shadow cast by the 60s, that decade where everything seemed brand-new and ever-changing. We're unable to escape the era's reproaches (why aren't things moving as fast as they did back then?) even as the music's adventurousness and innocence make it so tempting to revisit and replicate...
Continue reading
Henry Kissinger agrees to help FIFA
Newly re-elected FIFA President Sepp Blatter is turning to former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to help investigate problems within world soccer's governing body.Blatter says the 88-year-old Kissinger has agreed to be on a "committee of wise persons" to advise FIFA's new corporate governance and compliance body.
Kissinger's spokeswoman, Jessee LaPorin, confirmed that Kissinger agreed to participate. She said Kissinger has not yet received a formal request, but did receive an exploratory letter from Blatter.
Kissinger, who was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 under presidents Nixon and Ford, is an ardent soccer fan and worked on the failed U.S. bid to host the 2022 World Cup.
Blatter also says Wednesday that he wants to appoint Dutch great Johan Cruyff to the committee, which will have the power to investigate and suggest solutions to problems as FIFA recovers from a bribery scandal.
@'ESPN'
Ungfugnlaublich/Infugncroyable!!!
The secret bombing of the FA HQ starts when?
Kissinger's spokeswoman, Jessee LaPorin, confirmed that Kissinger agreed to participate. She said Kissinger has not yet received a formal request, but did receive an exploratory letter from Blatter.
Kissinger, who was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 under presidents Nixon and Ford, is an ardent soccer fan and worked on the failed U.S. bid to host the 2022 World Cup.
Blatter also says Wednesday that he wants to appoint Dutch great Johan Cruyff to the committee, which will have the power to investigate and suggest solutions to problems as FIFA recovers from a bribery scandal.
@'ESPN'
Ungfugnlaublich/Infugncroyable!!!
The secret bombing of the FA HQ starts when?
Baillieu finds crime pays
Illustration: John Spooner
Perhaps crime does pay. At least, that's what the Baillieu government seems to think. The Premier's lieutenants might be reluctant to discuss big issues such as infrastructure, public transport and the environment, but ask a minister about crime or anti-social behaviour and they almost jump out of their skin with excitement. So much so that an outsider might be forgiven for thinking Melbourne has been overrun by gangs of louts screaming abuse.Is it just me, or is this law-and-order stuff getting out of hand? Take a decision this week to make permanent laws giving police extraordinary powers to issue $240 on-the-spot fines for swearing and offensive behaviour.
As Attorney-General Robert Clark put it: ''Victorians ought to be able to go out at night, to be able to go out with their families and not be opposed and offended and have their trip made miserable by the obnoxious and offensive behaviour of louts.''
I'm not sure where Clark spends his evenings, but last time I went out I had a very pleasant night. Not a lout in sight. Exactly what constitutes the misery-making behaviour referred to by Clark will be up to the discretion of individual police.
The government this week also announced plans for an online survey to measure public opinion about appropriate sentences for criminals. According to Clark, the survey - which is apparently being conducted in tandem with the Herald Sun - will underpin a tough new sentencing regime for criminals to ''meet community expectations''.
This sort of nonsense may represent clever politics, but it's a shocking way to conduct public policy. You can almost guarantee the results will not accurately reflect public opinion because of the survey's ''self-selecting'' approach. Anyone who feels strongly enough is invited to go online and offer their opinions, rather than relying on a random selection. Ask any pollster, and they'll tell you the results are very likely to be heavily skewed towards the extreme.
Another interpretation, of course, is this is nothing more than a cynical political exercise. If that is the case, the results will either be ignored (as they were with a similar exercise conducted by the Kennett government), or they will be used to justify the government's tougher sentencing agenda.
The government also confirmed plans to impose mandatory minimum two-year jail sentences on 16 and 17-year-olds who commit acts of gross violence. Such a move, according to legal experts, is likely to breach the United Nations declaration on the rights of the child, while doing little to rehabilitate young offenders.
It seems Premier Ted Baillieu has put a large number of eggs in the law-and-order basket. There may be a genuine problem with violence and anti-social behaviour in Melbourne's CBD late at night. This could relate to a range of factors, including a binge drinking culture that has been allowed to fester, boredom, and perhaps bad parenting.
But the government's main motivation seems to be that many law-and-order policies are relatively cheap, but produce big results politically. Although boosting police numbers and installing protective services officers at every train station are costly, running a survey with the local tabloid on sentencing, or beefing up laws to tackle swearing, or locking up 16 and 17-year-olds, cost very little. Yet such policies can produce big political gains, particularly if elements of the media are complicit.
Such policies are all the more attractive in an age when the media continues to make loud demands for regular big-ticket announcements from our politicians, who have very little money left for new spending.
There are consequences. First, Victoria is fast trundling down the ''nanny state'' path, with a rising tide of rules and regulations inundating daily life, including permission to swear in public.
Such thinking is known as ''nudge theory''. The idea espoused by nudge theorists, led by US President Barack Obama's regulatory commission head Cass Sunstein, is that people need to be ''nudged'' into making the right decision because of a herd-like tendency to copy others' decisions. There may be some truth to this, but surely the justification needs to be weighed against costs. In this case, the costs include an increasing infringement of individual liberty.
Second, there is a danger that the government's law-and-order obsession comes to represent a cheap substitute for genuine action to tackle problems facing Victoria, including improving public transport, health and education, and tackling booming population growth.
Third, the Baillieu government's law-and-order agenda is itself in danger of spiralling out of control as it struggles to manage public expectations. Plans are now under way for a radical shake-up of the Office of Public Prosecutions, in addition to a review of the police force command structure. It has a massive task on its hands in recruiting thousands of additional police and protective services officers, not to mention the additional guards it will need to keep an eye on all those extra prisoners set to flood Victoria's jails.
This is not to say law-and-order is unimportant, or that there aren't problems with violence and anti-social behaviour that need to be addressed, or that the government didn't map out its law-and-order agenda during last year's election campaign.
But the cash-strapped Baillieu government has now gone too far, and it's time for a reality check. When Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies said, ''We took the name 'Liberal' because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary, but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise,'' surely he had something different from this in mind.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
