Double veto torpedoes UN Security Council resolution to reopen Strait of Hormuz
Posted by ThevaramAcolytus@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 47 comments
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Good. The first article of the UN Charter is:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace
If the UN is not ready to defend Iran from the US/Israeli aggression it has no place to put any further motions.
MelodiusRA@reddit
With that logic, the UN should never vote on Israeli occupation of the West Bank since it isn’t prepared to defend Israel from Hezbollah or Houthi rockets.
cesaroncalves@reddit
Occupation is itself a threats to the peace and an act of aggression.
MelodiusRA@reddit
Japan was occupied by the US and Germany was occupied by both the Allies and the USSR.
Occupation is a result of losing a war.
Since Israel was the defender in the 1967 war, the occupation was a result of Transjordan failing their aggression and losing territory to the west of the Jordan River.
heckin_miraculous@reddit
Sorry I'm new here. How would this work? If the UN passed a resolution to "open the strait", then Iran would have to do it, or else would be in violation of a UN resolution?
What I mean is, nobody can open the strait for them. Iran has to do it. So what would a resolution like this, if passed, actually do?
SaneSociopathPolitic@reddit
It would make further aggression from the US, Israel, or any other country fully warranted and legitimate in the eyes of the UN and "international law"
ChillAhriman@reddit
Ding ding ding, this is the correct answer. Passing this resolution wouldn't have practical immediate effects, since Iran's immediate reply would be: "That's cool, but we need to do this is order to defend ourselves".
The real goal here is that it would allow other countries to legally conduct military attacks against Iran in order to make the resolution effective. Obviously the US and Israel don't care about that, but this is the preparation grounds to bring other countries (UK, Germany, for instance) into the conflict.
nudelsalat3000@reddit
Yeah meanwhile they plow through Libanon and flatten the cities so nobody can live there anymore. Classic settling colonialism.
Also when they attack, Iran will have to retaliate, so they will scream they got attacked and the peace negotiations are broken.
Old word war vibes... Let's all get dragged into it....
ThatHeckinFox@reddit
Now I feel dumb for not seeing it on my own
ebekulak@reddit
No way Grmany and the K would miss a chance to enact aggression on brown people. Not in a million years.
Huachu12344@reddit
It's basically just another firmly worded letter
boringhistoryfan@reddit
If the resolution had passed, it would simply mean that Iran is in violation of a UNSC resolution. In and of itself it wouldn't mean much. Countries are often in violation of UN resolutions. Israel for instance has had several resolutions criticizing the illegal presence of settlements (the ones that don't get vetoed by its allies anyway) and it doesn't mean much in practical terms.
madbusdriver@reddit
UNSC has teeth different from a general un resolution. One from the security council can actually have the UN send in military force to reopen it but this never really happens as either the U.S. Russia or China veto to protect their Allies if neither one of these three are your friends than you are generally screwed (France and the U.K can too but they aren’t really used that often unless)
Ok_Currency_617@reddit
this never really happen
The Korean war would like to have a word with you.
KJongsDongUnYourFace@reddit
China very rarely uses its Veto. The US is by far and away the most prolific user of this power. Russia is catching up recently but it's not really close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions
Czart@reddit
Russia/USSR - 130 vetoes. 40 since 1992
USA - 90. 25 since '92.
China - 19. 18 since '92.
Come on bruh.
Own_Space_174@reddit
i mean it makes sense. most of the un is western or western allies, so naturally they will try to push through more pro-western stuff that russia or china needs to veto than vise versa.
Czart@reddit
No, majority of the world isn't western or western allies. Only permanent members of UNSC have this imbalance.
Non-permanent have 3 seats from Africa, 2 from Asia-Pacific, 1 from Eastern Europe, 2 Latin and Caribbean, 2 Western Europe and Others. So arguably there is 3 more "western allied" seats with other 7 ranging from friendly to very much not.
madbusdriver@reddit
Prior to 1970 it was more western nations. Don’t forget how many nations rose out of decolonization after WWII.
Czart@reddit
Sure, yet that wasn't the claim they made.
somewhataccurate@reddit
Anything that dude posts can be safely filtered out lmao
Czart@reddit
I'm very well aware. But i have to admit, linking to a site that has numbers that disprove your entire point is a new level of special.
somewhataccurate@reddit
He is hilarious thank you for putting the facts out like you did
KJongsDongUnYourFace@reddit
Why the 1992 cut off?
Virtual-Pension-991@reddit
Because USSR would inflate Russia's vetoes, being the inheritor of Stalin's Russia.
KJongsDongUnYourFace@reddit
So you think the USSR and Russia combined is more than the US? Because that's also wrong.
Czart@reddit
It's from YOUR OWN LINK YOU CLOWN.
KJongsDongUnYourFace@reddit
Brah. You should try counting
GianfrancoZoey@reddit
Well if you combine the USSR and Russia then sure, politically they’re obviously completely different entities but Russia is the continuator state of the USSR so maybe it is fair to do that
I assume the original comment was treating them separately and that’s how they got that America has ‘far and away’ the most, not sure how they got that ‘Russia’ is catching up though
Of course this is all irrelevant without considering how the SC is made up, and the various American vassal states that occupy it and their functions
Czart@reddit
That's very cool, since they're not the same country they can hand off their permanent membership to someone else.
Besides this being a predictable tankie cope, combined between uk/france/usa is 135 entirely, 25 since '92.
tommytwolegs@reddit
Russia has 40 since 1992, compared to the US 25 since 1992. That's definitely "catching up" to the US 90 total.
madbusdriver@reddit
Interestingly from 1970 to now the U.S. has a higher veto rate.
Looked into the early vetos the USSR used and they were mostly to block the inclusion of states that they perceived would tilt votes in the direction of western/NATO influence (Japan inclusion). Also if you look at it from the perspective that after World War II the US had the most influence on the UN/UNSC (France, and the UK, the fact they largely backed and created it) vs the USSR and China which weren’t as aligned as they are now so they had very little to veto when they dominated.
After 1970 a lot of nations joined the UN as a result of decolonization and voted against western interests and thus the U.S. started vetoing more. Primarily in relation to Israeli resolutions.
theclockmasters@reddit
Normally yes but there have been recent MAJOR UNSC Resolutions that have been universally adopted by all members (including the veto states) and yet because all the veto states (including France and the UK) have a vested interest in not actively enforcing the Resolution/letting the UNSC Resolution be violated, then the Resolution gets voted unanimously but nothing happens.
soowhatchathink@reddit
Which ones?
theclockmasters@reddit
Resolution 2773 was unanimously adopted. The resolution calls for the Rwanda Defence Force and the M23/AFC terrorist group (supported by Rwanda) to leave DRC territory and stop illegally occupying it, among other things. Yet beyond adopting it, the UNSC has not done anything to really enforce it. It has many levers it could use to do so, from sanctions to other mechanisms.
France doesn't want to, since Rwanda played a role in securing their gas instalments by TotalEnergy in Mozambique and because Macron loves Rwanda. Maybe they might start doing something now, since the EU won't renew the 20 million euros they gave to the now sanctioned Rwanda Defence Forces. It was countries like Belgium, Germany, and Sweden that didn't want to renew the funding due to the violations/crimes by the RDF in Eastern DRC.
China doesn't want to, since it profits from the pillaging happening in the eastern provinces of the DRC by Rwanda.
Russia probably does also profit but also has general indifference there.
The US under Trump didn't want to do anything until it became beneficial to them to do so. (see the Washington Accord Peace agreement between DRC and Rwanda, the Regional Economic framework between Washington/DRC/Rwanda and the US-DRC Strategic Partnership.
UK general indifference.
soowhatchathink@reddit
I don't think this is accurate. There are no UNSC resolutions that have passed that criticize Israel, the US vetoes them. There are UN resolutions but those don't have any weight behind them.
If a UNSC resolution passes, it is because the US, China, Russia, UK, and France all want it to happen, because they all have veto power. Or sometimes they don't necessarily want it to happen, but they don't want to block it so they don't veto (France and UK don't often veto, and China is also known to protest without vetoing certain resolutions they don't want to be seen as blocking). When UNSC they are passed they are enforced. Which makes sense, considering all global superpowers (and the UK and France) all want it to happen.
As a result, any resolution that goes against the US, China, or Russia's best interests end up being vetoed.
boringhistoryfan@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334
soowhatchathink@reddit
Ah I stand corrected
Dirkdeking@reddit
It would be extremely significant. For it to pass Russia and China wouldn't have vetoed it. If they don't veto a resolution like that it means that Iran has fallen out of favour with Russia and China. That would be terrible news for Iran.
RetardedGaming@reddit
The UN has no enforcement mechanism, so in actual effect a lot of people would write some strongly worded letters
captaincw_4010@reddit
Yes it does, but really only resolutions passed by the UN Security Council, but of course getting Russia, China and the USA to agree on anything is impossible so the UN never deploys.
But once upon a time the UN actually responded militarily, notably when North Korea invaded the south (The Soviets luckily happened to be boycotting the Security Council at the time but still)
ThatHeckinFox@reddit
Absolutely fucking Nothing.
The special UN guarantee!
discountErasmus@reddit
The Security Council is the only UN body able to authorize the use of force. So they in theory could pass a further resolution implementing this one, deploying ships or troops or whatever forces they deem necessary from among the member states. Huge pain, never happen, but that's theoretically what the security council, as opposed to the general assembly, is for.
OutlawSundown@reddit
Realistically there’s no way it would pass through the security council. In a scenario it could it basically would require the backing of force. The main body of the UN beyond the security council doesn’t really have any enforcement power the resolutions are non-binding. The only scenario in which the Security Council was able to do something was the Korean War because the USSR boycotted the vote and Taiwan held the permanent seat instead of mainland China. That still required the military backing of the US and a mix of countries willing to send forces.
ThevaramAcolytus@reddit (OP)
There have been some other instances, such as UNSC Resolution 1973 in 2011 against Libya which Russia and China both abstained on which the U.S., Britain, and France then used as a pretext to enact regime change and a widespread bombing campaign despite the actual language of the resolution itself.
Situations like that have made vetoes more and more likely, as the veto-wielding states fear that these resolutions and the ambiguity of certain language and phrasing can be abused and manipulated to support and justify actions which they don't explicitly state, providing a degree of legitimacy under international law for wars which they don't wish to provide that for.
imunfair@reddit
There were earlier drafts that had more language about what Security Council or Gulf nations should do to open the strait, the most recent draft was a toothless version that basically just legitimizes it if anyone wants to try to open it. But China and Russia are vetoing it to protect Iran from the US aggression since controlling the strait is their main way of hitting back.
ThevaramAcolytus@reddit (OP)