Read on Twitter
had a draft resolution fail miserably at the @UN Security Council on Friday.The tally: 2 yes votes, 2 no votes, & 11 abstentions.
Looks bad for @SecPompeo, @USAmbUN, & @realDonaldTrump, right?
Not necessarily.
[THREAD] https://thehill.com/policy/defense/512130-un-security-council-rejects-us-bid-to-extend-iran-arms-embargo
To start, it's been worse at the UNSC for Trump.
How much worse? In 2018, when @NikkiHaley was US ambassador to the UN, the administration had a resolution -- S/2018/520 -- fail by a vote of 1 yes (US), 3 no (Bolivia, Russia, and Kuwait), and 11 abstain
How much worse? In 2018, when @NikkiHaley was US ambassador to the UN, the administration had a resolution -- S/2018/520 -- fail by a vote of 1 yes (US), 3 no (Bolivia, Russia, and Kuwait), and 11 abstain
That was the second on two competing resolutions to address violence in Gaza. You can read more about the competing drafts in this @Nytimes story. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/world/middleeast/gaza-israel-palestinians-.html
Before 2018? It was rare for the US to have a resolution defeated that soundly.
Consider the findings in a working paper by @DreherAxel, @valentin_lang, @PeterRosendorff, & @james_vreeland (link at bottom of this @voxeu article) https://voxeu.org/article/buying-votes-un-security-council
The paper is interested in identifying if the US uses the @IMF to "buy" UN Security Council votes.
Wait! You mean countries don't vote sincerely? ;)
Wait! You mean countries don't vote sincerely? ;)
The first step is collecting information on UN Security council resolution votes from 1946 to 2015. Turns out, that's not so simple!
Votes on passed resolutions are found via @UNLibrary here:
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/409378
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/409378
Votes on resolutions that were vetoed by a P-5 member (FLAGS) are found here: https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick/veto
That's not all. They must also identify failed majority votes (i.e. no P-5 vetoed, but the resolution failed to garner 9 yes votes). That required more digging, especially through UN Security Council minutes https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick/meetings/2020
So what do they find? According to this figure from their working paper, instances of many members actually voting against a US draft resolution (by voting no or abstaining) is VERY rare (note: the 15 votes against column might be a coding error -- likely 14 votes against)
The reason overwhelming voting failures are rare is because resolutions likely to fail, particularly miserably, are never brought to a vote.
For example, back in 2003, the Bush administration knew it was facing an uphill battle in having the UNSC approve a resolution re-authorizing the use of force against Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/international/middleeast/us-may-abandon-un-vote-on-iraq-powell-testifies.html
So why has the Trump administration had this happen TWICE?!
I think because they want to make a statement, such as "look how much the rest of the world is against us!" It fits with the "America First" mentality.
I think because they want to make a statement, such as "look how much the rest of the world is against us!" It fits with the "America First" mentality.
Indeed, the comments of @USAmbUN to @FoxNews are telling: “The United States has engaged in good-faith diplomacy for months" https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-draft-security-council-resolution-iran-arms-embargo
This behavior is the inverse of how scholars have described the role of UN Security council votes.
Typically, it is thought that have UNSC *approval* is important as a symbol of legitimacy.
Typically, it is thought that have UNSC *approval* is important as a symbol of legitimacy.
For instance, see this paper in @IntOrgJournal by @ErikVoeten... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/political-origins-of-the-un-security-councils-ability-to-legitimize-the-use-of-force/AEDAAD98A5CD3812152012E19F6B0697
...or this new paper in Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy by @AntoinettScherz & Alain Zysset https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/13698230.2019.1565720
Also, in a 2014 @JPR_journal piece, @ladyProfessor & Amy Yuen look at the issues that are addressed by the UNSC https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022343319900222
They acknowledge that symbolic power is placed on the issues that the UNSC takes up
Notice the Hurd reference at the end of that note? That's in reference to his book https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XgXp2wcSbQEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=symbolic+importance+of+UN+Security+Council+vote&ots=_zO4k1lSUL&sig=G3WErKVXTUHTOvE7GcMXgGp5L8w#v=onepage&q&f=false
Other books looking at the symbolic power of UNSC authorization include Alex Thompson... https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qfutDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Thompson,+Channels+of+power&ots=odNFpeeinu&sig=xqBPA9s7PYTool3bOD34xIe0bNw#v=onepage&q&f=false
& @UTTerryChapman.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TJrfA3jJ2CkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=info:XpfnASGXUgMJ:scholar.google.com&ots=TBJrUgJH7e&sig=BZsFRUhecivpeWGpqIpFAUIDeSk#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TJrfA3jJ2CkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=info:XpfnASGXUgMJ:scholar.google.com&ots=TBJrUgJH7e&sig=BZsFRUhecivpeWGpqIpFAUIDeSk#v=onepage&q&f=false
For the record, the initial draft resolution can be read here (via @Foreignpolicy)... https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/07/document-of-the-week-iran-arms-embargo-united-nations-resolution/
...while details on the revised resolution (eventually voted upon) are described by @michellenichols in this thread: https://twitter.com/michellenichols/status/1293257265143844865
In the end, while the vote on Friday did not look good to outsiders, it's not the first time this has happened and the message it sent might be the exact message the administration wants to send.
[END]
[END]
