Chapter 5: The Changing Influence of the United States in the UN Security Council
2. The Special Case Study of Veto Right and the US Changing Influence in the UNSC (1946-2006) There are numerous literatures discussing the veto power, a special decision-making means emerging
3.3 The Critical Influence of the US in the UN Security Council (1989-Present)
3.3.3 The US, the UNSC, and the Anti-Terrorism War
3.3.3.3 The UNSC Recognition of the US Role in Postwar Iraq
not so far taking that one last chance.”222 But the speech of Colin Power failed to convince Russia and France.
Then, on February 24th, 2003, the US and Britain, co-sponsored by Spain, proposed a draft resolution on Iraq to the Security Council. But after failing to win the explicit approval and make sure that Russia and France would not veto the draft, the United States gave up presenting the draft to the Security Council.
President Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein on March 17, and depended on the temporary alliance to launch the war. As the appendix 6 shows, the US has gotten about 30 countries’ support for the military action, which was actually similar to that in the Gulf War. Ground forces (almost exclusively Anglo-American and significantly smaller than the large international force assembled in the first war) began invading the following day, surging primarily toward Baghdad, the southern oil fields, and port facilities.223 It was not very long for the US to defeat the Iraqi military, and at the middle of April 2003, American army and the world was surprised to find that the Iraq troops and government disappeared or collapsed in the Capital. On May 1st, American president Bush declared that the war was ended. The United States and its allies finally changed the Iraqi regime. Indeed, the United States did not convince France and Russia, two important UNSC permanent members, to get the mandate of the Council, but that only meant it could not manipulate the organization. Actually, the United States rallied a great deal of support for a very difficult mission and had great impact on setting the agenda of the Council, though some important countries tried to maintain the Hussein regime and the veto right permitted them some privileges.
Representative.225
But what was most important in this resolution was that it recognized the US dominant role in the postwar Iraqi domestic politics. Because of “Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent Representatives of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the Authority),”226 the Security Council endowed a dominant role as an authority to the United States, and this recognition differed in some respects from international humanitarian law.
According to the resolution, the occupying powers were an “authority” with the responsibility to “promote the welfare of the Iraqi people through the effective administration of the territory, including in particular working towards the restoration of the conditions of security and stability and the creation of conditions in which the Iraqi people can freely determine their own political future.”
Facing continuing violence against the US and UK forces in Iraq, the chief US civilian administrator, Paul Bremer, on May 16 barred some 15000 to 30000 members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party from holding positions in the Iraqi government or senior positions at Iraqi hospitals and universities. 227 Furthermore, “other States that are not occupying powers are working now or in the future may work under the Authority.” That is to say, the United States officials in Iraq will direct the work of other countries’
officials. The Resolution also recognized the US power in continuing the disarmament job in Iraq,
“Reaffirms that Iraq must meet its disarmament obligations, encourages the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America to keep the Council informed of their activities in this regard.”228 Thus, the Security Council basically recognized the legitimacy of the United States war in Iraq, and this resolution clearly manifested the US dominance in the Security Council.
Appendix 1
Table 1: The U.S. Presidencies (11-Member Council)229 11-member Council
1946 Nov.-Dec. 1956 April
1947 November 1957 May
1948 October 1958 April
1949 October 1959 April
225 The US Department of State, “UN Security Council Resolution 1483 Lifts Sanctions on Iraq,” at its Official Website, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20888.htm.
226 The United Nations Security Council, “S/RES/1483 (2003),” at the Official Website of the United Nations, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/368/53/PDF/N0336853.pdf?OpenElement.
227 Sean D. Murphy (ed.), “Security Council Recognition of U.S. Postwar Role in Iraq,” in The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, No. 3. (Jul., 2003), pp. 681-683.
228 The United Nations Security Council, “S/RES/1483 (2003),” at the Official Website of the United Nations, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/368/53/PDF/N0336853.pdf?OpenElement.
229 Ibid.
1950 October 1960 March
1951 August 1961 March
1952 August 1962 February
1953 June 1963 January
1954 June 1964 November
1955 June
Table 2: The U.S. Presidencies (15-Member Council) 230 15-member Council
1965 September 1979 August
1966 November 1980 December
1967 ---
1968 June 1996 February
1969 November 1997 September
1970 --- 1998 November
1971 February 1999 ---
1972 May 2000 January
1973 August 2001 May
1974 November 2002 August
1975 --- 2003 October
1976 February 2004 November
1977 March 2005 ---
1978 April 2006 February
Appendix 2
Veto Use by Country231 in the Security Council232
Period China France Britain US USSR/Russia Total
Total 4-5 18 32 80 122 257
2005 - - -
-2004 - - - 2 1 3
2003 - - - 2 - 2
2002 - - - 2 - 2
2001 - - - 2 - 2
2000 - - - 0
230 Davidson Nicol, “The United Nations Security Council: Towards Greater Effectiveness”, A Report on the Proceedings of a UNITAR Seminar and subsequent discussions involving former Presidents of the Security Council, senior international officials and scholars, 1977-1980, p. 20, and also see the data from the UN official website.
231 Only a minority of vetoes have been cast in cases where vital international security issues were at stake. 59 vetoes have been cast to block admission of member states. Additionally, 43 vetoes have been used to block nominees for Secretary General, although these vetoes were cast during closed sessions of the Council and are not included in the table above.
Limitation of veto use to Chapter VII (threats to international peace and security), as many members propose, would be a long step towards total veto abolition.
232 Table compiled by Global Policy Forum from UN information, http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm.
1999 1 - - - - 1
1998 - - - 0
1997 1 - - 2 - 3
1996 - - - 0
1986-95 - 3 8 24 2 37
1976-85 - 9 11 34 6 60
1966-75 2 2 10 12 7 33
1956-65 - 2 3 - 26 31
1946-55 (1233) 2 - - 80 83
Appendix 3
Time and Subjects of UN Security Council Vetoes by the US234 Year Date of Vote Vote
(yes-veto-no or abstain)
Subject
2004 October 5 11-1-3 On the demand to Israel to halt all military operations in northern Gaza and withdraw from the area.
March 25 11-1-3 On the condemnation of the killing of Ahmed Yassin, the leader of the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas
2003 October 14 10-1-4 On the security wall built by Israel in the West Bank.
September 16
11-1-3 On the Israeli decision to "remove" Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat.
2002 December 20 12-1-2 On the killing by Israeli forces of several United Nations employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse
June 30 13-1-1 On the renewal of the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and the immunity of US peacekeepers from ICC jurisdiction
2001 December 14 12-1-2 on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian-controlled territory and condemning acts of terror against civilians
March 27 9-1-4 On establishing a UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians
(report of Council meeting SC/7040)
1997 March 21 13-1-1 Demanding Israel’s immediate cessation of construction at Jabal Abu Ghneim in East Jerusalem
March 7 14-1-0 Calling upon Israel to refrain from East Jerusalem settlement activites
1995 May 17 14-1-0 On the Occupied Arab Territories (East Jerusalem) 1990 May 31 14-1-0 On the Occupied Arab Territories
233 Between 1946 and 1971, the Chinese seat on the Security Council was occupied by the Republic of China (Taiwan), which used the veto only once (to block Mongolia’s application for membership in 1955). The first veto exercised by the present occupant, the People’s Republic of China, was therefore not until 25 August 1972.
234 Source: Data from the United Nations and Sydney D. Bailey and Sam Daws, The Procedure of the UN Security Council, 3rd Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998.
January 17 13-1-1 On the Violation of Diplomatic Immunities in Panama
1989 December 23 France, UK,
USA 10-4-1
Situation in Panama
November 7 14-1-0 Situation in the Occupied Arab Territories June 9 14-1-0 Situation in the Occupied Arab Territories February 17 14-1-0 Situation in the Occupied Arab Territories
January 11 France, UK,
USA 9-4-2
Complaint by Libya against US Downing of Aircraft
1988 December 14 14-1-0 Complaint of Lebanon against Israel May 10 14-1-0 Complaint of Lebanon against Israel April 15 14-1-0 Situation in the Occupied Arab Territories
March 8 10-2-3 UK,
USA
South Africa (Sanctions)
February 1 14-1-0 Situation in the Occupied Arab Territories January 18 13-1-1 Complaint of Lebanon against Israel
1987 April 9 9-3-3 Namibia Question
February 20 10-3-2 UK,
USA
South Africa (Sanctions)
1986 October 28 11-1-3 Complaint of Nicaragua against USA (ICJ Judgment) July 31 11-1-3 Complaint of Nicaragua against USA (ICJ Judgment)
June 18 12-2-1 UK,
USA
Complaint of Angola against South Africa
May 23 12-2-1 Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe Complaint against South Africa
April 21 9-5-1 Libyan Complaint against US Attack
February 6 10-1-4 Syrian Complaint against Israeli Interception of Libyan Civilian Aircraft
January 30 13-1-1 Violation of Haram Al-Sharif (Jerusalem) January 17 11-1-3 Complaint by Lebanon against Israeli Agression 1985 November
15
12-2-1 UK, USA
Situation in Namibia
September 13
10-1-4 Situation in the Middle East (Occupied Territories)
July 26 12-2-1 UK,
USA
South Africa Questions
May 10 13-1-1 Complaint of Nicaragua against USA May 10 11-1-3 Complaint of Nicaragua against USA May 10 13-1-1 Complaint of Nicaragua against USA March 12 11-1-3 Situation in the Middle East (Lebanon) 1984 September 6 14-1-0 Situation in the Middle East (Lebanon) April 4 13-1-1 Complaint of Nicaragua against USA
1983 October 27 11-1-3 Invasion of the Republic of Grenada by US Troops
August 2 13-1-1 Situation in the Middle East (Occupied Arab Territories) 1982 August 6 11-1-3 Situation in the Middle East (Lebanon)
June 26 14-1-0 Situation in the Middle East (Lebanon) June 8 14-1-0 Situation in the Middle East (Lebanon) June 4 9-2-4 UK, USA Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Question
April 20 14-1-0 Situation in the Middle East (Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem Attack)
April 2 13-1-1 Situation in the Middle East (Mayors of Nablus and Ramallah Dismissal)
April 2 12-1-2 Situation in Central America (Nicaragua) January 20 9-1-5 Situation in the Middle East (Golan Heights) 1981 August 31 13-1-1 Complaint by Angola against South Africa
April 30 12-3-0 France,
UK, USA Question of Namibia
April 30 11-3-1 France,
UK, USA Question of Namibia
April 30 9-3-3 France,
UK, USA Question of Namibia
April 30 9-3-3 France,
UK, USA Question of Namibia
1980 April 30 10-1-4 Situation in the Middle East (Palestinian Rights) 1977
October 31 10-5-0 France,
UK, USA Situation in South Africa
October 31 10-5-0 France,
UK, USA Situation in South Africa October 31 10-5-0 France,
UK, USA Situation in South Africa
1976
November 15
14-1-0 Application for Membership (Socialist Republic of Vietnam)
October 19 10-3-2 France,
UK, USA Situation in Namibia
June 29 10-1-4 Question of the Exercise by the Palestinian People of their Inalienable Rights
June 23
13-1-0
China didn’t participate
Application for Membership
March 25 14-1-0 Jerusalem Status
January 25
9-1-3
China and Libya didn’t participate
Middle East Question including the Palestinian Question
1975 December 8 13-1-1 Situation in the Middle East (Israel/Lebanon)
September 30
14-1-0 Application for Membership (North Vietnam)
September 30
14-1-0 Application for Membership (South Vietnam)
August 11 14-1-0 Application for Membership (North Vietnam) August 11 14-1-0 Application for Membership (South Vietnam)
June 6 10-3-2 France,
UK, USA Namibia Question
1974
October 30 10-3-2 France,
UK, USA South Africa (Representation in the UN) 1973
July 26 13-1-0 China
didn’t participate
Situation in the Middle East (Palestinian Question)
May 22 11-2-2 UK,
USA
Situation in South Rhodesia (Zimbabwe)
March 21 13-1-1 Panama Canal Question
1972 September 10 13-1-1 Situation in the Middle East (Ceasefire 1967 Violation) 1970 March 17 9-2-4 UK, USA Situation in South Rhodesia (Zimbabwe)
Appendix 4
The Support in the UNSC for Sanctions on Iraq during Gulf War
Year Resolution Date Yes No Abstention Not
participating
1990 660 2 August 14 0 Yemen
661 6 August 13 0 2 (Cuba, Yemen)
662 9 August Unanimously 664 18 August Unanimously
665 25 August 13 0 2 (Cuba, Yemen)
666 13 Sep 13 0 2 (Cuba, Yemen)
667 16 Sep Unanimously 0
669 24 Sep Unanimously
670 25 Sep 14 1 (Cuba) 0
674 29 Oct 13 0 2 (Cuba, Yemen)
677 28 Nov Unanimously
678 29 Nov 12 2 (Cuba, Yemen) 1 (China)
1991 686 2 Mar 11 1 (Cuba) 3 (China, India, Yemen)
687 3 Apr 12 1 (Cuba) 2 (Ecuador, Yemen)
688 5 Apr 10 3 (Cuba, Yemen,
Zimbabwe)
2 (China, India)
689 9 Apr Unanimously
692 20 May 14 0 1 (Cuba)
699 17 June Unanimously 700 17 June Unanimously
705 15 Aug Unanimously
706 15 Aug 13 1 (Cuba) 1 (Yemen)
707 15 Aug Unanimously
712 19 Sep 13 1 (Cuba) 1 (Yemen)
715 11 Oct Unanimously
Appendix 5
Table 1. Militarization in the Middle East and Elsewhere 1960-1986235
Military Expenditure
Per Capita (1986 US Dollars)
Military Expenditure as Percent of GNP
Armed Forces as Percent of Total Population
Area 1960 1986 1960 1986 1960 1986
World 124 175 6.5 5.6 0.6 0.5
USA 897 1164 8.5 6.3 1.4 0.9
USSR 472 971 11.0 11.5 1.7 1.3
Middle East 65 390 5.6 18.1 0.8 1.7
Egypt 18 66 5.5 8.9 0.5 0.9
Jordan 60 153 16.7 13.8 2.1 1.9
Iran 91 327 4.5 20.0 1.0 1.4
Iraq 191 738 8.7 32.0 1.2 5.1
Israel 82 1187 2.9 19.2 3.1 3.5
Saudi Arabia
148 1478 5.7 22.7 0.6 0.6
Kuwait ? 786 ? 5.8 ? 0.7
Syria 64 268 7.9 14.7 1.1 3.6
Table 2. U.S. Forces in the Persian Gulf
Date Army Total
1 September1990 31,337 95,965
235 Ruth Leger Sivard, World Military and Social Expenditures 1989 (Washington: World Priorities), see Charles Tilly, War and State Power, Middle East Report, p. 39.
7 November 1990 124,704 266,096
15 January 1991 245,290 422,041
22 February 1991 296,965 533,608
Table 3. Military Presence of the Coalition States in the Persian Gulf236
State Military Presence Leaders
Afghanistan 300 troops
Australia Hmas Sydney ffg03 guided missile frigate; hmas brisbane ddg 41 guided missile destroyer; hmas success or 304 auxiliary oiler replenishment; hmas westralia ao-195 underway replenishment ship237
Bahrain 400 personnel, 36 aircraft Bangladesh 6,000 troops
Belgium 1 frigate, 2 minesweepers, 2 landing ships, 6 C-130 planes
Britain 43,000 troops, 6 destroyers, 4 frigates, 3 minesweepers, 168 tanks, 300 armored vehicles, 70 jets
Canada 2 destroyers, 12 C-130 planes, 24 CF-18 bombers, 4500 troops, Field Hospital (1 Canadian Field Hospital)
Czechoslovakia 200 chemical warfare specialists
Egypt 40,000 troops (5,000 special forces paratroopers) France 18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120 helicopters, 40
tanks, 1 missile cruiser, 3 destroyers, 4 frigates
Germany Jagdbombergeschwader 43 consisting of 18 Alpha-Jets and 212 soldiers stationed in Erhac/Turkey during the gulf war. 5 Minesweeper, 2 Supply Vessels, 500 sailors altogether.
Honduras 150 troops
Hungary 1 medical unit
236 “Operation Desert Storm”, see: http://www.desert-storm.com/War/nations.html.
237 Australian Army-Air Defence Detachment served aboard the Success and there were Linguist that served aboard the various ships. The Army has a Medical Team, that served aboard the US Navy Hospital Ship Comfort. 9 Australian Army personnel served with the British Army during Desert Storm. The Royal Australian Air Force had a very low profile role, it was mainly a support role for the Navy. Some did serve on the USS Comfort with the medical teams and other’s else where.
Italy 3 frigates, 4 minesweepers, 10 Tornado Aircraft
Kuwait 11,000 troops, 2 missile boats, 1 barge, A-4 Skyhawks (exact # unknown)
Emir of Kuwait New Zealand 50 medical soldiers and 2 C-130's
Niger 500 troops
Oman 25,500 troops, 63 airplanes, 4 Exocet-armed ships
Poland 1 Hospital Ship
Qatar 1 squadron of Mirage F-1E fighters Romania 180 chemical warfare experts
Saudi Arabia 118,000 troops, 550 tanks, 180 airplanes King Fahad South Korea 5 C-130 transport planes, 1 medical unit
Syria 17,000 troops, 300 T-62 tanks United Arab
Emriates
40,000 troops, 80 planes, 200 tanks
United states 540,000 troops, 6 aircraft carriers, submarines, 4,000 tanks, 1,700 helicopters, 1,800 airplanes
George Bush President of the United States238
Appendix 6
“The Coalition of the Willing: Facts & Figures”239
Nation Per Capita
GDP
Annual amount Spent on Military
Troops in Coalition $ Allocated in latest US Budget
Afghanistan $800 NA 0 $127M
Albania $3,800 0.056 70
Australia $24,000 9.3 2000 Azerbaijan $3,100 0.121 0 Bulgaria $6,200 0.356 150*
Colombia $6,300 3.3 0 $34M
Costa Rica $8,500 69 0
Czech Rep. $15,300 1.19 1 NBC* Team $15M
Denmark $29,000 2.47 1 sub, 1 warship Dom. Rep. $5,800 0.18 PW#
El Salvador $4,600 0.112 0
Eritrea $740 0.138 0
Estonia $10,900 0.155 0
Ethiopia $700 0.8 0
Georgia $3,100 0.023 0
Honduras $2,600 0.035 0
238 There are some other leaders like Norman Schwarzkopf CENTCOMM Commander; Jim Baker Secretary of State; John Sununu President’s Chief of Staff ; Dick Cheney Secretary of Defense ; Brent Scowcroft President’s National Security Advisor; Bob Dole Republican Leader of the Senate ; George Mitchell Democratic Leader of the Senate; Sam Nunn Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman; Les Aspin House Armed Services Committee Chairman.
239 http://www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/.
Hungary $12,000 1.08 0 $15M
Iceland $27,100 0 0
Italy $24,300 20.2 0
Japan $27,200 40.7 0
South Korea $18,000 12.8 0
Latvia $7,800 0.087 Still deciding
Lithuania $7,600 0.23 0
Macedonia $4,400 0.2 0
Micronesia $2,000 NA 0^
Netherlands $25,800 6.5 360
Nicaragua $2,500 0.026 0
Palau $9,000 NA 0+
Philippines $4,000 0.995 PW#
Poland $8,800 3.5 200@ $15M
Portugal $18,000 1.2 0
Romania $6,800 0.985 278*
Slovakia $11,500 0.406 0 $4.5M~
Spain $20,700 8.6 1 medical ship
Solomon Isls. $1,700 NA 0
Tonga $2,200 NA 0
Turkey $6,700 8.1 0 $1B
Ukraine $4,200 .5 500*
UK $24,700 31.7 45,000
Uzbekistan $2,500 0.2 0
USA $36,300 396 300,000
Note: (1) [*] Nuclear, Biological, Chemical decontamination experts; [#] Undisclosed number of troops pledged for post-war deployment; [@] Non-combat troops; [+] Between 20 and 200 of Palau’s 20,000 citizens reportedly already members of the U.S. military; [^] Micronesia is, by treaty, wholly dependent on the US for its defense; [~] Same amount was offered to Slovenia, which is NOT part of the coalition.
Conclusion: the US and the United Nations System
Throughout postwar history, the influence of the US on the United Nations system has been a heated issue among all those concerned with the relationship between states and international organizations. As Claude has generalized, on one hand, “American performance in the world organizations may be cited as an extraordinary example of national support for the purposes and principles of an international organization, on the other, it could be counted as a shocking case of national domination and perversion of an international body.”240 As an indispensable component of most critical political and economic organizations, the discussion about US influence has been along two different lines. First, the US takes advantage of international organizations through the privileged position entitled it by its indisputably leading status of power. Second, some (especially some officials in the US government) have depicted the US as a scapegoat of certain international institutions. This is evident through the restrictions set on the US by a series of fixed rules; rules which hamper the ability of the US to mobilize its power to achieve the set goals of the institutions. Simply put it, “[is] the world abused by the US or [is] the US abused by the world.”241
In terms of the United Nations system, there has never been a lack of people who are skeptical about its independence. They believe that the UN is not fulfilling its role as an independent actor in possession and control of its own resources. The UN system, under many circumstances, is reckoned to be a receptacle for the combination of resources supplied by the member states. Therefore, as the biggest contributor to UN activities, it has been difficult for the United States to shift from almost totally controlling international organizations to being restricted by rules that it has to respect. In the end, the fact of the matter is that no one can deny that the United States has played a substantial role in relatively closed, but critical international organizations even though its influence has experienced an ebb and flow since the end of World War II. However, how is it that the hegemon can maintain its important status in some international organizations when it has lost this status in other organizations?
After all the different arguments, there is still a lack of objective and empirical analyses about what would be the determinant variables in deciding US influence on the UN system. As overviewed in Chapter One, from a theoretical standpoint, the power of a state and the openness of a given organization have been abstracted from Neorealism and Neoliberalism. There are numerous pieces of theoretical and empirical literature talking about these two variables and their impact on determining the influence of a state, but there has been little serious effort to combine these two variables together to provide a feasible analytical framework to explain it. Chapter Two, on the basis of the theoretical support, reviewed some empirical analyses further in order to endow this research with a more profound foundation as well as point out some insufficient places that need to be improved. Then, an integral and parsimonious model is proposed to
240 Inis L. Claude, Jr, States and the Global System: Politics, Law and Organization, The Macmillan Press, 1988, pp. 98-99.
241 Ibid., p. 99.
create a hypothesis about the Super Power’s influence on three organizations. Simply speaking, the contribution of this dissertation is that it has not only carefully examined the evolution of US influence on the United Nations, but it has also brought forward a concise model to identify this influence. Based on this model, we can continue to examine and predict US influence in other international organizations or even the influence of other great powers in various international organizations.