Soviets Veto the Korean War...

ObssesedNuker

Lets say that Stalin keeps tabs on Kim Il-Sung's preparations to invade South Korea a little better and anticipates Truman's attempt to use the United Nations as a means of getting around the finnicky war powers thing. Hence, when the time comes for the United Nations to vote on intervention in North Korea, the USSR breaks its boycott long enough too veto the proposal.

What happens?
 
Cook

Cook

Banned
America would still commit forces as would the main American allies. Some other nations may not but since the numbers of troops sent by nations who were not close allies wasn’t significant it isn’t going to change anything.
 

HeavyWeaponsGuy

Banned
Not really, the UN can always find something on which it fails to be decried as useless. The UN was the most worthless piece of crap around on the East Timor issue until several Western countries effectively got together and decided that the friendship with ol' General Suharto wasn't going to stick around at which point the Australians and some others got together one of the more successful interventions in UN history.

An unsuccessful Korean intervention wouldn't hurt the United Nations, it would just get the USA and the USSR that much more pissed off at each other, that veto power would not be in the Security Council if the powers that be at the time of its creation did not want it to be there.

Five years from 1955 the World Health Organization is going to embark upon an (initially successful and obviously requiring HUGE logistical support) anti-malaria campaign across the globe, while the effort is a great case study in well-intentioned people armed with chemicals they do not fully understand the ecological consequences of using, it happens to be an excellent worldwide campaign by a directly UN-affiliated organization that probably won't be all that affected by a Soviet veto of Korea.

The UN will be, as always, as relevant or as irrelevant to an issue as people want it to be. Want to talk about why UNAMIR failed? Take it up with France, the UK, or the USA, not the United Nations itself (not to say people like Annan and BBG didn't drop some major balls in Rwanda).

Edit: Also, welcome back Cook.
 

bguy

Donor
The Soviet veto accomplishes nothing. All that happens if the Soviets veto the resolution is the US immediately submits the "Uniting for Peace" resolution to the General Assembly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377

That resolution authorizes the General Assembly to take action to counter acts of aggression when the Security Council fails to act due to one of the permanent members using their veto. OTL the resolution passed by a 52-5 vote in November 1950. It will pass by a similarly lopsided vote here, and then the very next resolution the US will submit will be to have the General Assembly authorize UN intervention to defend South Korea. The General Assembly was overwhelmingly pro-US at this point and will easily pass the intervention resolution.

Using the General Assembly to circumvent the Soviet veto is exactly what the US did after Inchon when they wanted the UN to authorize the liberation of North Korea. The Soviets were no longer boycotting the Security Council by that point and would have certainly vetoed any such resolution, so the US simply submitted the resolution to the General Assembly instead which promptly approved the resolution by a lopsided vote, and the UN armies marched north.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/pd-c-11.htm
 

Geredis

HeavyWeaponsGuy said:
No, the entire reason for going to the UN in the first place was to get around that process.
Click to expand...

Yet, wouldn't he need to do so since he'd need some leg of legitimacy to stand on, and without the UN sanctioning it, isn't that pretty much the only way he can get that legitimacy, short of the South Koreans giving a very explicit invitation to come over?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top