The answer was discussed at a meeting over the weekend.
The British appeared to host it. 40 countries took part, including ours, and they were talking about what you might remember is the “global rules-based approach”.
That broadly was the way things were done pre-Trump.
We would have a meeting, agree roughly on a course of action and then head off to the global body that deals with such weighty matters – the United Nations.
The resolution post the meeting was a vote would be held to all chip in and get the Strait of Hormuz open.
The vote was due Saturday. It didn’t happen. It got delayed.
Why? Because people started objecting to it, and that is the rules-based order for you.
The United Nations, at moments like this, is bordering on pointless.
The Security Council has permanent members, and the permanent members have veto votes. If one person doesn’t like the idea, it's off.
So the model, such as it is, requires everyone to agree on an idea and when on one side of the table you have the US and on the other you have Russia or China, what do you reckon the chances of that happening are?
So, nothing gets done. Which is why Iran has been able to get away with what they have for 50 years.
Every time it gets to the edge, or a point where people start to panic a bit, off to the UN we go, have a debate, maybe a vote, wag a finger or two, maybe agree to a nuclear inspection or two – but then ultimately nothing happens.
And so it carries on around, and around, and around.
Which doesn’t make Trump right or unilateral moves on war particularly acceptable. But it does highlight the futility of a system that has failed on the Iran issue for five decades and puts it up against a unilateral decision that, at the very least, has set back Iran for years.
Most of the world argues for rules-based decision making.
Most of the world argues what Trump has done is illegal.
One of the questions though: which one is more effective and actually gets things done?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
The resolution post the meeting was a vote would be held to all chip in and get the Strait of Hormuz open.
The vote was due Saturday. It didn’t happen. It got delayed.
Why? Because people started objecting to it, and that is the rules-based order for you.
The United Nations, at moments like this, is bordering on pointless.
The Security Council has permanent members, and the permanent members have veto votes. If one person doesn’t like the idea, it's off.
So the model, such as it is, requires everyone to agree on an idea and when on one side of the table you have the US and on the other you have Russia or China, what do you reckon the chances of that happening are?
So, nothing gets done. Which is why Iran has been able to get away with what they have for 50 years.
Every time it gets to the edge, or a point where people start to panic a bit, off to the UN we go, have a debate, maybe a vote, wag a finger or two, maybe agree to a nuclear inspection or two – but then ultimately nothing happens.
And so it carries on around, and around, and around.
Which doesn’t make Trump right or unilateral moves on war particularly acceptable. But it does highlight the futility of a system that has failed on the Iran issue for five decades and puts it up against a unilateral decision that, at the very least, has set back Iran for years.
Most of the world argues for rules-based decision making.
Most of the world argues what Trump has done is illegal.
One of the questions though: which one is more effective and actually gets things done?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
13 comments:
People should understand that Trump’s public statements always leave him with options.
In that context, it has been interesting watching the MSM haters trot out their usual garbage, accusing him of war crimes before his threats have had time to achieve their objective - bring the Iranians back to the negotiating table. It is and has always been part of a proven, successful, negotiating strategy.
Wonder what they will say if and when he reaches a deal to open the Strait of Hormuz without firing a shot.
Who knows what will happen next but, given his achievements to date, only a fool would bet against him this time.
The historical truth is a better basis on which to make predictions about this very volatile part of the world than opinions based on pure hate.
Told you so!
Haven’t heard from the Naye Sayers yet -
Can’t believe they are lost for words.
Re Clive B
You are correct
Especially about "who knows what will happen next"
That is how wars are fought and won.
Keep the enemy guessing.
Which in this case includes all liberal mainstream media and many contributors of articles on this website.
Your prediction also seems to be unfolding - "without firing a shot"
So what’s new? UN was never instrumental in conflict resolution, at best it endorsed what was already happening. Which was just fine while it suited our interests or those of our allies.
International rules based order is merely a term for the Western uniparty bloc to impose its own will (that covers the fake labour type parties, ''liberals'' and gravy train centre right tories and CDU types all pro EU control agenda, a nice cosy club). There never has been a set or rules that all comply with.
Trump’s way has been an obvious mess, just like he did with bankrupting a casino. American has wasted billions and things are not even back to where they were 2 months ago. The sycophants will lap it up, of course.
Anon 733, the 5 founding members of the UN were the US, the UK, France, the Soviet Union and the Republic of China (subsequently China-Taipei). Hardly a "Western uniparty bloc."
The EU is not a nation-state so it is not a UN member. However, it has "enhanced observer status" which means that it can partake in UNGA proceedings but has no voting rights (not that UNGA resolutions are binding anyway - only the UNSC ones are).
All UN members abide by the UN Charter which includes Article 51 about the right of self-defence although some disagreement exists about when a pre-emptive strike is justified.
To Barend When commentators etc like uni academics refer to a rules based order they seem to speak from a perspective I described . I am aware of the UN and its founders and the EU.
Then cut the bullshit about "Western uniparty blocs" and "EU control agenda". That is NOT the perspective we speak from!
Maybe you do not others do .
Let’s all ignore Clive’s perspicacious comments about Trump’s ability to broker a deal with the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism and instead wander off into waffling about the UN.
100 to 0.001 any UN resolution would back Iran. Trump’s answer to Iran is negotiate honestly or die.
Seems to be working
I, for one, don’t feel the need for Clive Bibby’s gratuitous advice as to how to understand Trump’s rhetoric. To him it may seem like “part of a proven, successful, negotiating strategy”, but to me it’s the confusion of a man who has started a war the ending of which is proving elusive. Personally, I find his bombast about the ruthless use of U S power appalling. In the meantime, the repercussions are being felt around the entire world, but for the innocent people of Iran, it really is catastrophic, (which in no way is to be taken as defense of their dreadful government). For good measure, this war is costing the Americans $1.4 billion a day, and it runs the risk of destroying the NATO alliance that has served world stability so well since 1949.
A simple question Ewan.
Got a better idea for getting them to the negotiating table or a method that will prevent these worldwide sponsors of terror from ever again threatening the whole world?
I thought not!
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.