France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was just saying that the Security Council is a joke and to rely on it for effective enforcement is hopelessly naive.

The Security Council can make war and major policy decisions. I'd say its far from a joke.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Even if it was done for the wrong reason, it is still recommendable.

Hitting the United States on the nose (hard!) is the most important priority right now for any responsible person, wherever he may live.

...he mouths from the safe glow of his computer screen.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Security Council can make war and major policy decisions. I'd say its far from a joke.

France is showing just how effective the Security Council really is. What's the use of having all that power if you won't even use it in a cut and dry case like Iraq?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Always is... of course nearly all guys have issues as well.

Thank you meester philosopher!

[Imran Siddiqui]

France is showing just how effective the Security Council really is. What's the use of having all that power if you won't even use it in a cut and dry case like Iraq?

You can make the same case for when a political party blocks a declaration of war on the Senate floor by filibuster.

Just because you can block a war doesn't mean that that the body isn't effective. It is just harder to get it accomplished.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by GP
1. I thought you were providing the girl free. SOrt of a pro-bono, homo-prevention program?

2. This one is a cutey...but there are some issues.

1.Depends on how you look.
Claudia says your half-way decent, so it could be arranged.

2.They ALL have issues, nothing new there.

On Topic:

France never bothers with right and wrong, national pride and money are the only motivations for France.

[Drake Tungsten]

You can make the same case for when a political party blocks a declaration of war on the Senate floor by filibuster.

If the Senate was blocked by filibuster as much as the UNSC is blocked by the P5 nations, I would call the Senate a joke as well. This is just the latest incident that reveals the weakness and growing irrelevance of the Security Council. It will never be an effective enforcer of international law in its current state.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

err, if they're infinite, how about an example?

OK: end the current sactions regime, install a new one, solely against weapon systems and a ban on Iraqi participation in international activities. That way, you have the Iraqi people return to wealth while keeping Saddam from effectively rearming.

But what does the peace in the last 50 years have to do with Intl. law? the fear of total war was the stopping force, not Intl "law".

Well, the fear of total war ended in 1989: 14 years an yet no new big wars. No, I don't think "fear" was the only aspect to their being no new major wars: Fear of war pre-WW2 was huge, and no, I don't think nukes changed the equation much: back in the 1930's all the 'visionaries' of future war saw huge fleets of bombers gassing cities as being the future of war, yet that image of devastation was not enough to stop a huge war. No, I think there have been no significant major new war for the same reason there were none from 1815-1914:A new system came into being, a new set of rules to play by, and the majority of the players in this system decided that, while not perfect, it was better than the possible alternatives. That system is what I call international law. Since we have no global regime, obviously it functions very differently than 'law' within states, but still it has value, it still confers "legitimacy" or "ilegitimacy" to actions. It constrains behavior, and it influences future choices by regimes about what to do.

The Brits were weaker in 1900 than the americans are now, relatively.The americans' power projection capabilities are much larger, their troop quality superiority is larger... The Israel example is irrelevant. The palestinians have much more political capital than Saddam, matching the the Israelis', without doubt. The fact that they are managing it even worse than the Israelis is a different matter.

Measurements of relative power do not work accross time, only within their own time. The fact that the US is unrivalled is not only a fact of what the US has done and is, but what everyone else has done as well:

There are probably 40 states out there, that if they wanted to, and they started to right now, could have nuclear weapons and medium range ballistic missiles ready for use in a decade.
Perhaps twice as many have the technical abilities,and the resources to, in that decade, aquire some form of biological weapons, such as breeding anthrax, which is cheap, and a slightly smaler number could create first generation chem. weapons, many up to third gen. (VX) chem. weapons.

Could the US stop them? No. It takes months for the US to get its forces ready to attack a single state, ringed by a network of bases up for one decade, and it is using 25% of its military force. Yeah, the US might be able to fight 2 wars at the same time, but 80? Nawh. The US didn't stop India and Pak. from making nukes, and I doubt they really could have stopped them if they wanted to. So, within 10 years, dozens of states could have the ability to at least deter american adventurism against them,and that of their neighbors. And some of the greatest powers choose not to be military powers. honestly, in 25 years the Japanese could build, if they wanted, a navy large enough to severely challange US control of the northern Pacific. They, and the Germans, could have their own ICBM's and nuclear detterents. BUt they choose not to. Back in 1900, very few states could have simply decided that in 10 years, they would have the ability to challenge the UK, and that was even more true in 1880. No, Britian's power in the late 19th century, compared to its fellows, was greater than that of the US today, not smaller.

So why do so many states chose to be weak? Why do they chose not to have the biggest, badest, meanest things they can afford? Why isn't it "every state for itself", with everyone in a race to amke sure they have the ability to kill the approprate number of millions that they can kill, given their techinical expertise and wealth?
Does this sound like a lwaless world? A world without rules? If it is lawless, can anyone afford not to have WMD?

So, finally, a questionf or you Azazel:

Why do the NPT and the convention on Chemical and Biological weapons stand? Why haven't those states too weak to currently battle the US, or another great power, decided that the way to personal security lies not with being able to kill as many millions as possible?

[Imran Siddiqui]

All the SC requires is that the case be clear. Fact is that the Iraq case isn't totally clear. They found a few old chemical containers. That strengthens the case but doesn't prove that chemical munitions are being made right now.

And the only reason that the Senate doesn't block war as much as the P5 countries do is because they took away the power from the Senate and gave it to the President (within 90 days). I guess that was because the Senate was becoming a joke.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

You can make the same case for when a political party blocks a declaration of war on the Senate floor by filibuster.

If the Senate was blocked by filibuster as much as the UNSC is blocked by the P5 nations, I would call the Senate a joke as well. This is just the latest incident that reveals the weakness and growing irrelevance of the Security Council. It will never be an effective enforcer of international law in its current state.

Do you think the P5, back in 1945, would have decided to join such a body as the UN as long as they believed their aims could be blocked?

Fine, the P5 can sue the Sec Council for their own selfish interests. Heck, if the Sec Council had the power to force P5 states to act, they might make the US follow things like Kyoto, or a world court. Now we wouldn't want that, would we?

National sovereignty works on more issues than just Iraq.

[SlowwHand]

Ned had some questions for you, GePap.

[Drake Tungsten]

All the SC requires is that the case be clear. Fact is that the Iraq case isn't totally clear. They found a few old chemical containers. That strengthens the case but doesn't prove that chemical munitions are being made right now.

They don't need to find anything; they only need to show that Saddam is blocking effective inspection once again. Hans Blix is on TV every day complaining about Iraq's cooperation, but France has arbitrarily decided that non-cooperation is no longer a material breach. The system doesn't work...

Do you think the P5, back in 1945, would have decided to join such a body as the UN as long as they believed their aims could be blocked?

No they wouldn't have. The Security Council is broken because it was purposely made so. That's why your hopes of using the Security Council to enforce the NPT is naive.

[Chris 62]

The Tungsten man repeats some of the things I said in the begining, namely the whole inspection process is a farce, and that the big 5 can do whatever they like.

Also, Bush made it clear, no more games, Iraq is still playing games.

I hope France has fun residing over the obscurity that will be the UN without active US support.

[Maroule]

Originally posted by Chris 62
On Topic:

France never bothers with right and wrong, national pride and money are the only motivations for France.

discovering realpolitiks, Mr. Virgin?
and the US of course would be unable to do anything cynical for their self interest....

the more I read your quote, the more I crack up... You guys are so sure you're right and the rest of the world can only be wrong....

[Drake Tungsten]

Exactly, Chris. Have people already forgotten Bush's speech before the UN, where he challenged the Security Council to save itself from irrelevance? It seems like the French have forgotten about it...

[Maroule]

bush will become irrelevant before the UN does. Why? because everybody, esp the US, needs a global institution, however imprefect, to pick up the s***...

[Drake Tungsten]

Hardly. Without US support, the UN is no better than the League of Nations.

[Maroule]

true, what I question is the 'without US support'. I can't see the US dropping out, because they still use the UN whenever it pleases them, and that outweights short term headaches

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Maroule
Ozz, "firmly established a reputation for selling out and bailing out. " which event are you talking about? if it's being beaten by the Germans in 40, then everybody else was too. (even the US on their first land confrontation with the germans in WWII got a nose bleed. That's Kasselrine, Operation Torch, for anybody who asks).

Not talkin' lost battles here, but offical acts of state

Starting at 1940

The surrender, the Fleet inaction, Vichy, Metrox, Syria
Alpine aggressions against Italy (after It. surrender and
co-belligent against axis) and the USA. (until Truman cut
French supplies)

After 1945

NATO, selling India a reactor after they refused to sign the NNPT, Inciting Terrorism in Canada (nice Allies). Causing Terrorism in New Zealand (Nice Allies).

Churchill should have picked Sweden.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Hardly. Without US support, the UN is no better than the League of Nations.

I am all for dropping the pretences. Get out of the UN already!

[Drake Tungsten]

true, what I question is the 'without US support'. I can't see the US dropping out, because they still use the UN whenever it pleases them, and that outweights short term headaches

The UN is starting to be less and less of a benefit to the US. They wouldn't approve action in Kosovo and now it appears that they won't approve action in Iraq. If things continue in this manner, continued participation in the UN might not be worth the headaches it causes for the United States.

I don't think the US will ever leave the United Nations, but I can envisage a day where the US no longer goes to the UN with any issues of real importance.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I am all for dropping the pretences. Get out of the UN already!

We'd prefer to be free riders. Maybe the Senate will hold back dues again.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't think the US will ever leave the United Nations, but I can envisage a day where the US now longer goes to the UN with an issue of real importance.

There we have it; the old hypocricy again.

Get out, and good riddance.

[Arrian]

There really needs to be a middle finger smiley.

-Arrian

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Arrian
There really needs to be a middle finger smiley.

-Arrian

Seconded.

-CT

[Ozz]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

We'd prefer to be free riders. Maybe the Senate will hold back dues again.

Is the US paid up?

5 vetos

US - For
UK - For
France -$$$ (for)
Russia -$$$$ (for)
China-? Veto ?

Whats' in it for China to allow a "police action"
France is irrelevant

[Maroule]

so why all the fuss?

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ned had some questions for you, GePap.

Thank you Sloww, and the answer is on page 10.

They don't need to find anything; they only need to show that Saddam is blocking effective inspection once again. Hans Blix is on TV every day complaining about Iraq's cooperation, but France has arbitrarily decided that non-cooperation is no longer a material breach. The system doesn't work...

No, the system works just fine: the French, and 90% of states out there don't care if Saddam still has WMD, as long as he can't use them. As long as the inspectors are in Iraq, Saddam is as much a non-issue as he was from 1995-1998. Hell, from 1999-2001 Saddam wasn't much of a trouble maker, even without inspectors. Your mistake is to assume that most members of the UN actualy buy Bush's little tirade about having to "defend the Honor of the UN". After all, the main purpose of the UN is peace, not ant-proliferation or anti-Al Qaedeism. After all, plenty of US allies are thgemselves in material breach, as it were, of plenty of UN Sec Council resolutions, with Morocco being leader of the pact, yet the US never cal to enforce those, and neither does anyone else.

No they wouldn't have. The Security Council is broken because it was purposely made so. That's why your hopes of using the Security Council to enforce the NPT is naive.

Read the whole of my answer Drake:I never call for the SC to enforce the NPT; no one can "enforce" the NPT since its a voluntary treaty. Everyone is free to leave when they damn well please.
Yet in that fact lies the reason for the value fo the UN. As long as most nations think the system works (ie. peace is maintained, and when someone invades someone else, they wil be punished), then they have every reason to stick with the NPT, and conventions against Bio and chem. weapons. If at any point they begun to think: hell, the UN system is coming apart, what reason would they have to stick with the NPT? The goodwill of the US? yeah, RIGHT. No, it is the continued existance of the UN system that makes voluntary actions, like forsaking nukes, to work. Fine, call for the end of the UN: but don't complan when everyone decides that perhaps they do need Nukes after all.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by GePap
After all, plenty of US allies are thgemselves in material breach, as it were, of plenty of UN Sec Council resolutions, with Morocco being leader of the pact, yet the US never cal to enforce those, and neither does anyone else.

The #1 violator is Israel, afaik.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
All the SC requires is that the case be clear. Fact is that the Iraq case isn't totally clear. They found a few old chemical containers. That strengthens the case but doesn't prove that chemical munitions are being made right now.

And the only reason that the Senate doesn't block war as much as the P5 countries do is because they took away the power from the Senate and gave it to the President (within 90 days). I guess that was because the Senate was becoming a joke.

I don't think that is true. Interpretations of the previous resolution have been varied. But Roland claims that it says that if there is clear evidence of misbehavior the SC still decides what to do after they see that.