UN Security Council Resolution 1559 and US multilateralism

Résumé du document

The United Nations Security Council Resolution of 1559 was adopted by the Security Council on September 2, 2004 by a vote of 9 in favor (Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom, United States), to none against, with 6 abstentions (Algeria, Brazil, China, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation). The resolution addresses two main issues that had been worrying the international community for months. One of them is the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militia. This was a diplomatic way to target Syria and Iran, two countries which are the main backers of the Lebanese "Resistance" movement Hizbullah, directly. Also, Syria had more than 35.000 troops stationed in Lebanon, in violation of several resolutions.

Extraits

[...] John Danforth September 2004. Bernard Gwertzman, Indyk: Latest Security Council Resolution Threatens Assad's Hold on Power, Council on Foreign Relations October 2005. indyk indyk Congressional Research Service, Syria : U.S. Relations and Bilateral Issues January 2006. Please refer to the Appendix for a full text of the Syria Accountability Act. CRS Crane, Mary. Middle-East : U.S.-Syrian Relations. Council on Foreign Relations February 2005. Flynt, p Leverett, Flynt. [...]

[...] What is American Exceptionalism? In order to analyze the extent to which the U.S. support to resolution 1559 reflects American exceptionalism, one must first define this notion. For the purposes of this research paper, we will ascribe to American exceptionalism four main characteristics.[27] A willingness to go alone on a variety of issues with a sense of immunity. The assumption that one's national values should be universal and that foreign policy has a strong moral component. A strong tendency to look inwards, even if it entails adopting national laws that contradict international agreements. [...]

[...] strategy until Resolution 1559 was to pressure unilaterally Syria through economic sanctions, but since September 2004 the Bush Administration has discovered that Security Council resolutions could also provide an effective political pressure tool on the Syrian regime:[14] while economic sanctions can be criticized for not affecting the regime directly but rather the impoverished Syrian citizens, the legitimacy of U.N. resolutions are harder to challenge. Also, the economic sanctions decided unilaterally by the U.S. against Syria did not have any support from the rest of the international community, especially within the European Union.[15] Unfortunately, this policy has shown its limits, since Syria has not changed its problematic behaviors.[16] Hadley, then the deputy national security advisor, noted that U.S. and European policies toward Syria were characterized by “imperfect coordination.”[17]In fact, U.S. [...]

[...] The Security Council adopted Resolution 1559 only a few hours before the parliamentary vote, in an attempt to send a clear message to the Syrian regime, which was directly targeted in the U.S. Ambassador's speech to the Council.[7] Security Council Resolution 1559 is exceptional Policy shift Back to multilateralism after the war in Iraq Cooperation with France after the war in Iraq Who would have imagined, a few months after the diplomatic standoff between France and the United States on Iraq, that both countries would join forces to introduce a common resolution on the Middle East? [...]

[...] position regarding multilateral organizations. Indeed, resolution 1559 is an example of the United States' “selective engagement” within the U.N. system. According to the particular situation at hand, and the global diplomatic environment, the United States will select the policy option that appears to be the most efficient in pursuing its goals. Whether this option is actually the best one is debatable. Model 1 In the case of resolution 1559, the American position was influenced by two of the models that we have studied. [...]