Will the French and/or Russians veto? - Page 3

Dis · March 10, 2003, 02:48

you guys are acting like the U.N. means anything to the U.S.'s desires

Urban Ranger · March 10, 2003, 03:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
you guys are acting like the U.N. means anything to the U.S.'s desires

So true

DanS · March 10, 2003, 03:03

Am I the only one who thinks that the US is much less powerful in a unipolar world than with the UN? The power that the US has is severely overstated.

Good point. The power that the US has is vastly overrated and the US most often needs or wants to act multilaterally. But the best position for the US to be in is leading small and large coalitions to do certain tasks. The US can tailor its multilateralism and often the UN just gets in the way, if it has any impact.

For instance, for the Iraq operation, we have the US, Australia, New Europe, Kuwait, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and South Korea. This is a quite sufficient coalition. The UN didn't facilitate this coalition.

The War Against Terrorism has some 80 countries as part of the coalition. The UN didn't facilitate this coalition.

The coalition that will confront North Korea will be Japan, South Korea, Australia, and perhaps China and Russia. The UN hasn't facilitated this coalition so far.

Off the top of my head, the only vital US interests that are directly impacted by the UN is the resolution of the Cyprus issue and I guess the UN imprimateur in Korea. True, we do distribute food through the UN, but that's mostly not a vital interest. Maybe you can think of some here and there that I can't.

Compare to France, which is a third-tier power without the UN.

Drogue · March 10, 2003, 08:37

I don't think Russia or China will veto (IIRC the Times reported that China won't even vote against, but abstain

). I think the French would, but I don't think they'll have to. I don't think Britain and the US will get the 9 votes for the new resolution.

(I would post a link, but my Timesonline account has decided not to work on the school computers

)

Drogue · March 10, 2003, 08:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
you guys are acting like the U.N. means anything to the U.S.'s desires

Does to the Uk though. I think the US will go it alone, I can't see Britain doing that. Blair would face so many resignations, I don't think he'll risk it.

woke26 · March 10, 2003, 08:44

I'm a bit pessimistic and affraid that no country dares to stand up against the American rage. So i think no veto's

Lancer · March 10, 2003, 08:52

"the American rage" Kinda like that woke, YOU DL!!!

DL dance, yeah...

Dis · March 10, 2003, 14:35

I do think Blair will go at it alone.

Paul Hanson · March 10, 2003, 14:40

He'll be eaten alive by:

a) The British public
b) His party
c) The press

if he does. Not that I'm saying he won't do it, but he'll have hell to pay if he does.

Jeltz · March 10, 2003, 15:08

Russia has confirmed plans for veto on Iraq:
BBC news

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 15:18

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Am I the only one who thinks that the US is much less powerful in a unipolar world than with the UN? The power that the US has is severely overstated.

Good point. The power that the US has is vastly overrated and the US most often needs or wants to act multilaterally. But the best position for the US to be in is leading small and large coalitions to do certain tasks. The US can tailor its multilateralism and often the UN just gets in the way, if it has any impact.

For instance, for the Iraq operation, we have the US, Australia, New Europe, Kuwait, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and South Korea. This is a quite sufficient coalition. The UN didn't facilitate this coalition.

[..]

I mostly agree although I think that the US may find that its flouting of the UN makes it harder to persuade other countries to join such enterprises, especially democratic countries since anti-Americanism is now a viable election platform.

Anyway the latest news is that Pakistan will definitely abstain. Remember that the anti-war party needs only seven countries to either abstain or vote against the motion or one of Russia, China or France to veto.

This means the abstainers/opponents are. Russia, China, France, Syria, Germany, and now Pakistan.

I think Chile will also abstain but I don't know about the others.

So it looks like the resolution is likely to fail without a veto as the pro-war party cannot now afford to drop any one vote.

I hope it fails, because if it does it looks like Blair is toast.

Andrew1999 · March 10, 2003, 15:23

Pakistan is going to abstain. So that's 6 no-or-abstain votes (Russia, China, France, Pakistan, Syria, Germany.) The resolution needs 9 Yes votes, so at this point an abstention is the same as voting no, and one more no-or-abstain will sink the whole thing. Of course a lot can happen (and a lot of checks can be written) in a day.

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 15:26

Didn't I just say that?

Andrew1999 · March 10, 2003, 15:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Didn't I just say that?

I just took forever to make my post, I didn't see yours when I started.

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew1999

I just took forever to make my post, I didn't see yours when I started.

Sorry.

BTW were you typing one-fingered or are you just a stickler for style? After all it's not a long post?

PLATO · March 10, 2003, 15:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yes they have very good reasons of not wanting a war: vested businesses interests.

UR I am proud of you. You finally got it! Not to prevent bloodshed or in a belief that Saddam will disarm, but simply over their business interests.

Andrew1999 · March 10, 2003, 16:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Sorry.

BTW were you typing one-fingered or are you just a stickler for style? After all it's not a long post?

1. Click Reply.
2. Type a few lines.
3. Look for source, since every post has to have a bibliography now.
4. Look for more sources.
5. Look at some other links.
6. Send an email.
7. Write another line in reply.
8. Hit submit.
9. Notice that somebody else posted the same thing while I was playing around.

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 16:53

Shi Huangdi · March 10, 2003, 17:06

"the only reason anyone outside of the Us (even Tony) is able to back this war is because Saddam has done so much against the UN."

Not really. People who oppose Saddam do so because he is a dangerous man who won't disarm and because he is a foul dictator with a nasty human rights record. If Blair's reason for going after Saddam was his failure to comply with the UN he wouldn't be ready to go to war without UN support.

""he must disarm and fulfill his promises to the international community""

The latter part of that is pretext.

"Also, as the US moves to confront NK, it will need the security council. "

No, it won't. Cooperation from China, Japan, SK would all be very valubale, but we don't need French approbal. We will work with other nations to act on this issue.

"May I also add that the NPT, the only thing that makes it techinically illegal for states like NK to make nukes (and hence, the name rogue...), exists basically only under the whole UN system."

Alot of good it has done at stopping states such as NK and Iran from getting Nukes.

"The US is not omnipotent: "

No it's not. I don't mean to suggest we will always be able to act alone, though we should be able to under certain circumstanaces. But the UNSC is a bad framework for international cooperation because certain countries who have vetoes on it such as China are have interests very different from the US. The US is by the far the greatest power in the world and it would be a horrible precedent if third world dictators start to get the idea that we can't hurt them unless Paris, Moscow, and Beijing go along.

"Anyone here think the US could, if it wanted, get involved in a Indo-pakistani war, for example? "

Of course. US intervention on either side would grant that side naval and air superiority.

"The war on iraq is a mistake in my eyes. The long term (10-20 years) consequences on overall US security and the stability of the world order will, in my view, be predominantly negative; the bad consequences of this war will most likely outweight the positive ones. "

I disagree. Right now the region in which it is most important to have the most influence in is the middle east. Installing a friendly government in Iraq will greatly increase our power projection ability in the Mideast, especially given Iraq's central location; if the US occupies Iraq we will have forces bordering some of the countries we are most concerned about right now. We will also be able to withdraw from Saudi Arabia and move our forces into Iraq, thus taking away one of OBL's greatest recruitment mechanisms.

"Moreover, it isn't in a position to compete with a Sino-Russian-European military bloc, quite simply because such a large scale war is not politically feasible except in the dreams of right wing nut cases."

Europe opposes military action against Iraq, that doesn't mean they are about to sign a military alliance with Russia and China. China is content to focus its influence on Asia, and Russia couldn't even stop military action against one of it's closest allies(Serbia)

"The recent election in Germany has shown how powerful anti-American sentiment is and no doubt desperate politicians will indulge it to get elected. "

Even the likes of Schroeder can't really be called anti-American. Germany is still assisting us in Afghanistan. Moreover, anti-Americanism in Europe comes in waves: during Reagan it was especially strong, during Clinton it died down again. Europe is not going to permanetly break with the US, and it most certainly is not going to try actively oppose the USA.

"He'll be eaten alive by:

a) The British public
b) His party
c) The press

if he does. Not that I'm saying he won't do it, but he'll have hell to pay if he does."

Parliamentry elections aren't until 2006. By then the war will have been won and Blair's ratings may actually have been increased, and Iraq won't be a big issue anymore.

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 17:16

All I meant is that if the US becomes too aggressive the others will be compelled to ban together to check it.

Arrian · March 10, 2003, 17:16

They can hold a vote of no-confidence, Shi. They don't have to wait for elections.

-Arrian

Shi Huangdi · March 10, 2003, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
They can hold a vote of no-confidence, Shi. They don't have to wait for elections.

-Arrian

Given the size of Labour's huge majority and the strong chance that the Tories might vote for the government, Blair should stay on.

"All I meant is that if the US becomes too aggressive the others will be compelled to ban together to check it."

Maybe if we invaded Canada again or something that would happen. But the Euros aren't going to go running to Russo/Chinese arms over Saddam.

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 17:23

Yes but I get the feeling that the Saddam business is just the start of an extreme unilateralist policy which IMHO would be a disaster.

Anyway, Blair will learn that he is not solely responsible for Labour's popularity, they would still win without him. However, he himself is deeply unpopular both in his party and in the nation at large due to his pro-war-at-all-costs stance. His own caucus can dump him and are making noises that they might. Apparently, Clare Short's attitude is that of several other cabinet ministers and Blair was so scared of the consequences this morning that he didn't sack her.

Lancer · March 10, 2003, 17:55

Shi, great couple of posts. I wasn't aware that Blair didn't face election until '06. That's good news.

What would you consider the likelyhood of a no confidence vote, and when?

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 17:58

Actually, if you're interested in why the French seem to be behaving so strangely take a look at this.

http://lincolnplawg.blogspot.com/

Velociryx · March 10, 2003, 18:19

I don't think the French will veto, because if they do, then they'll not be allowed to participate in the war, which means they'll be totally shut out of any and all the restructuring (those who have supported the US position from the start will have a louder voice, and reap more benefits).

Given that France stands to lose all the rich oil contracts, the definitely do NOT want to get shut out of the process entire.

-=Vel=-

Agathon · March 10, 2003, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
I don't think the French will veto, because if they do, then they'll not be allowed to participate in the war, which means they'll be totally shut out of any and all the restructuring (those who have supported the US position from the start will have a louder voice, and reap more benefits).

Given that France stands to lose all the rich oil contracts, the definitely do NOT want to get shut out of the process entire.

-=Vel=-

If you read the blog I linked to Vel, it contains reasons that make your picture less compelling.

The Vagabond · March 10, 2003, 18:27

Both France and Russia will veto. This is becoming more clear now.

If they've got at least some remnants of self-respect, they should veto.

Velociryx · March 10, 2003, 18:32

Just read it....may be on the money.....maybe not.....who wants to take the gamble that the gun's not loaded tho?

-=Vel=-

The Vagabond · March 10, 2003, 18:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Anyway, Blair will learn that he is not solely responsible for Labour's popularity, they would still win without him. However, he himself is deeply unpopular both in his party and in the nation at large due to his pro-war-at-all-costs stance.

The essence of his stance is not pro-war-at-all-costs. It is rather pro-US-at-all-costs. He is deeply convinced that that's in the ultimate national interest of Britain. And he might well be right.