France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[Arrian]

Actually, MAD simply requires that the leaders of nuclear powers are not, in fact, mad.

They don't have to be particularly responsible. They just have to not be raving lunatics.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

On what moral gorund can the US stand, demanding others get rid of nukes entirely, if itself is not wiling to do so? And how could it ever enforce such an act if it did get rid of them before others?

That's the problem in a nutshell.

The only way around it is a much more powerful UN. A world government, even. As you say, getting 200 or so countries that mostly hate each other to agree to such a thing is unlikely in the extreme.

So what do we do? All I want is an end to morality-based hypocritical ranting by our politicians. It is, apparently, too much to ask.

-Arrian

[Az]

First of all, I'll answer your questions, GEP.

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?

1)the NPT doesn't say that they will not have any WMD.
2)they've decided to sign the treaty because that's what the US, or at the time, the USSR, wanted them to do. You don't want to get on the bad side of your Boss, right?

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.

AFAIK, this is more or less the current embargo. just see how the northen part of Iraq, which also operates under the food-for-oil program is prospering.

Well, the fear of total war ended in 1989: 14 years an yet no new big wars.

Nothing to do with international law, but with the fact that it is not good for the US. when the US found that war was on the best side of things, it let it occur. see the SFR Yugoslavia RIP.

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.

So do you want to say that it was the devoteness to the Ideas of humanism and democracy that didn't push the USSR and the US to 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.

-what was the new "system" that came into being between 1815-1914
-International law is often followed, but that's just because it is usually coinsides with the will of the superpowers. and what wonder is that? it was them who wrote it in the first place.

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 why are you so afraid of the US making new rules? It can't enforce them anyway. ( which doesn't differ at all from the 'system' we have right now)

So, within 10 years, dozens of states could have the ability to at least deter american adventurism against them,and that of their neighbors.

it seems that it's not that easy, after all. just look at Iraq. they tried to, but have been denied repeatedly. and what about North Korea? it has nukes now. It had the ability to build nukes, AND IT DID USE THAT ABILITY. so now, they can deter american adventurism against them. as for the others, they don't need to deter american adventurism.

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.

Actually, I believe they could do it in much less time.
But they DON'T WANT TO. they know the US will not attack them, because it wouldn't be worth it for the US. neither do they want to conquer the US, because it wouldn't be worthy, economically speaking.

They, and the Germans, could have their own ICBM's and nuclear detterents. BUt they choose not to.

because of not so distant history.

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.

a) The US started to challenge the Brits in the late 18th century.
as to europe, who exactly could challenge britain? France and Germany. France had a problem with the stability of power.
Germany did challenge Britian. in WWI.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Arrian
Actually, MAD simply requires that the leaders of nuclear powers are not, in fact, mad.

They don't have to be particularly responsible. They just have to not be raving lunatics.

If they are Minor Power leaders, they should pretend to be lunatic; just to be on the safe side.

Saddam is a case in point: His weakness is that no one thinks of him being lunatic enough to not care about his or Iraq´s survival, *IF* he can take 100.000 invaders with him. The fact that he is quite sane seems to work against him. Were I in his place, I might have better cards.

Then again, I might not be alive, because I certainly would have dropped *everything* I had on the Americans in the last war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's why your hopes of using the Security Council to enforce the NPT is naive.

Who else is going to enforce it? The US cannot enforce the NPT because it isn't a US resoluton, it is a UN resolution. So if the UN can't enforce it all it means is that the NPT cannot be enforce (which for all intents and purposes... let's get real... cannot be enforced).

Btw, one of the goals of the NPT was the reduction of nuclear weapons the nuclear powers. It seems the US can't enforce its end of the bagain .

[Arrian]

I certainly would have dropped *everything* I had on the Americans in the last war.

Happily, you do not lead Iraq, or any other country.

-Arrian

edited because Imran snuck a post inbetween. Bastard.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by GePap
On what moral ground can the US stand, demanding others get rid of nukes entirely, if itself is not wiling to do so? And how could it ever enforce such an act if it did get rid of them before others?

1. Establish a truth-commision, like in South africa were the people are given a public forum were they can express their grievances.

2. Support the UN in areas of logistics and finance and improve their capability in areas of search and seizure.
The confiscation of nukes could eventually be tied up with financial recompense.

3. Make the UN a true democratic institution, maybe along the lines of the american sustem where every country have two senators in a upper house and representatives according to population in the lower.
The president is elected through a worldwide election process.

4. Make efforts to improve the understanding that everyone on the planet is a human being.

[Imran Siddiqui]

edited because Imran snuck a post inbetween. Bastard.

MWAHAHA!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Arrian


Happily, you do not lead Iraq, or any other country.

-Arrian

edited because Imran snuck a post inbetween. Bastard.

Dunno; the North Korean strat works: 'Yes, you CAN go to war against us, but prepare to lose Seattle, if you do. And you know I mean it.'

Sounds like a powerful strat, really.

[Arrian]

Make the UN a true democratic institution, maybe along the lines of the american sustem where every country have two senators in a upper house and representatives according to population in the lower.
The president is elected through a worldwide election process

Most of the countries on the planet are not democratic. The largest one, by population, sure as hell isn't. So you would hand a ton of authority in a democratic supra-national organization to a totalitarian government?

This is just one reason why we are a loooooooooong way from a world government, at best.
-Arrian

[Arrian]

CT,

I am not questioning the apparently usefulness of the "I'm a wacko with nukes" approach. I'm just glad you do not wield power in the world.

-Arrian

[Maroule]

Originally posted by Ozz
I bet it would be easier to get agreement here on invading France than Iraq.

That's already happening. Every year 50 million people visit France

[Arrian]

Come on, you know the Brits agreed to the Chunnel so that they can enact their secret "get back Normandy & Gascony" plan in 2023.

-Arrian

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Arrian
I am not questioning the apparently usefulness of the "I'm a wacko with nukes" approach. I'm just glad you do not wield power in the world.

And you SHOULD be glad; if you support the New World Order, that is.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Maroule
That's already happening. Every year 50 million people visit France

50 Million? Is there even 50 million people in France?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
First of all, I'll answer your questions, GEP.

1)the NPT doesn't say that they will not have any WMD.
2)they've decided to sign the treaty because that's what the US, or at the time, the USSR, wanted them to do. You don't want to get on the bad side of your Boss, right?

1) which is why I also included the convention on Bio-and chem weapons
2) many nations waited several decades before joining in. Israel never did, and the "Boss" was not too upset, was he? India and Pak. never did either, and many states, like Argentina or Brazil kept on nuclear programs that ended only after US backed Military dictatorships failed. Because of facts like these, i discount the notion that the "great powers" forced others to sign.

AFAIK, this is more or less the current embargo. just see how the northen part of Iraq, which also operates under the food-for-oil program is prospering.

No, Iraq is free to participate in international events, and the sanctions are complete, in theory. Until the "Food for OIl program", you could not trade anything with Iraq. IN fact, outside the "food for oil" program, it is illegal for Iraqi business to export anything, or import anything.

Nothing to do with international law, but with the fact that it is not good for the US. when the US found that war was on the best side of things, it let it occur. see the SFR Yugoslavia RIP.

It took 3 years before the US got involved at al in the minor affair that was the collapse of Yugoslavia: no, that does not explain why no great power wars.

So do you want to say that it was the devoteness to the Ideas of humanism and democracy that didn't push the USSR and the US to war?

No, both sides felt they had a nice secure nitch and they did not want to rock the boat too hard, otherwise their nitch might disappear.

-what was the new "system" that came into being between 1815-1914
-International law is often followed, but that's just because it is usually coinsides with the will of the superpowers. and what wonder is that? it was them who wrote it in the first place.

THe New system was the Congress of Vienna. Between 1700 and 1815 there were at least 4 wars in Europe that involved all the great powers, and minor ones (Spanish succession, Austrian succession, 7 Year's War and the Wars fo the French Revoltuion: the War for American independence finally had 3 great powers involved). From 1815 to 1914 there were none. The Great powers got together and decided to keep things in check, for a while. And yes, today the system is maintained by the Great Powers (UNSC veto members and the likes of Japan and Germany). Nothing has yet changed.

So why are you so afraid of the US making new rules? It can't enforce them anyway. ( which doesn't differ at all from the 'system' we have right now)

We have a system: it exist only as long as all the players agree to it. Compare it to a soccer match: If the best player ont he field all of a sudden decides that what's best for him is a new set of rules, how long will the match last? Will it not decend into chaos? Iraq is breaking UN rules, set up by the whole UN (all five permanent members plus 4). The rules then, are to be enforced by that same group. The US is only one of many members, th strongest, yes, but only one. The UN rules are not its own. For the US to claim that it has a mandate to enforce UN resolutions without full support from the UN is as serious a violation of the rules as Iraq's actions, and since the US is the strongest state in the system, far more dangerous.

it seems that it's not that easy, after all. just look at Iraq. they tried to, but have been denied repeatedly. and what about North Korea? it has nukes now. It had the ability to build nukes, AND IT DID USE THAT ABILITY. so now, they can deter american adventurism against them. as for the others, they don't need to deter american adventurism.

Iraq lost the ability because of other actions and rule breaking (invading Kuwait). Had Iraq not invaded Kuwait, it would have nukes now. And yes, a few states like N.Korea, Israel, India, and Pakistan do sometimes buck the system because they don't think it will work for them. After all Azazel, why does Israel need nukes, if the US has them?

Actually, I believe they could do it in much less time.
But they DON'T WANT TO. they know the US will not attack them, because it wouldn't be worth it for the US. neither do they want to conquer the US, because it wouldn't be worthy, economically speaking.

BUt this is not an issue of whether the US will attack them or not: most politics are local. India did not get nukes because it feared the US (or USSR) but China, and Pak got nukes cause of India. Now the US can't go to war with either. Argentina wanted nukes because of Brazil and Chile, Brazil wanted nukes because of Argentina. If the system were to break down, the greatest danger to most player would not be the US, but their neighbors. That still is a reason to get nukes (Iraq wanted nukes against Israel and Iran, not against the US) which in the end, limits the US.

because of not so distant history.

History wears off.

a) The US started to challenge the Brits in the late 18th century.
as to europe, who exactly could challenge britain? France and Germany. France had a problem with the stability of power.
Germany did challenge Britian. in WWI.

When we speak about threat to the US today, do we ever mean a challange from the UK, France, Germany, or Japan? No, back in 1900 the UK had no greivances with the US, and few with the continentals (only germany and Russia were seen as trouble, and if by 1900 they were, back in 1870 or 60 they werent'. If you want to be a strickler, I will move the British time of predominance back to the 1850's.) And to connect this answer to a previous one: From 1815 to 1914 a system was set up in Europe to keep the peace. Over time, strains showed, until finally, by the beginning of the century, players within it , powers, begun to decide they might be better of with a new system: WW1 and all that follow (good and ill) is what resulted. Which is why I oppose the US. Will the good that follows the possible collapse of this current system outweight the possible bad? I am not fully hopeful about that.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Arrian




Most of the countries on the planet are not democratic. The largest one, by population, sure as hell isn't. So you would hand a ton of authority in a democratic supra-national organization to a totalitarian government?

This is just one reason why we are a loooooooooong way from a world government, at best.
-Arrian

Don't you see the finesse of having representatives correspond with population number?
That would mean that the more care for the people's well-being the more indirect influence you would have.

Also bear in mind, and I suppose you mean China in your statement, that although some nations will have many representatives - any law passed would still have to be passed through the senatorial office, where everyone has two votes - well it's a big world so let's make it four.

The president would still have the use of the veto, maybe.

[Ned]

The world certainly is at a crossroads. The fate of the world for the forseeable future will be dicided by what happens in the next few weeks or months. Two nations that have signed the NPT have sought to acquire nuclear weapons, and at least one of them, North Korea, has declared publicly that they have a right to do so.

GePap and others here argue that these states have an inherent right to nuclear weapons. I would assume therefor that they would also be in favor of a total withdrawal of UN inspectors from Iraq and an end to sanctions. In fact, one could view the original UN imposition of a requirement of disarmament in 1991 to be a violation Iraq's sovereign rights.

Will the world be a safer place if we follow the advice of GePap and others?

I personally do not think so.

I think Lincoln was faced once with a similar choice. Respect the sovereign rights of the seceded states, or resist their assertion of states rights for the greater good of the nation.

Should the world act against non cooperating states to prevent them from acquiring WoMD? That is the question that we face.

[Arrian]

That would mean that the more care for the people's well-being the more indirect influence you would have

You think that high population corresponds well with "care for the people?" I don't.

What I meant to say, though, is that in order for you to set up a democratic world government, pretty much everyone has to agree that democracy is the best system. We're a long way from that.

-Arrian

[Az]

1) which is why I also included the convention on Bio-and chem weapons
2) many nations waited several decades before joining in. Israel never did, and the "Boss" was not too upset, was he?

Israel has developed WMD before the NPT. the Boss wanted to us to keep a lid on it, for it's own reasons. we did. That's why we didn't sign the NPT.

India and Pak. never did either, and many states, like Argentina or Brazil kept on nuclear programs that ended only after US backed Military dictatorships failed. Because of facts like these, i discount the notion that the "great powers" forced others to sign.

are these your points in support of intl. law? America wasn't concered with those dictatorships having nukes. they were as you've admitted yourself, AMERICAN-BACKED.

No, Iraq is free to participate in international events, and the sanctions are complete, in theory. Until the "Food for OIl program", you could not trade anything with Iraq. IN fact, outside the "food for oil" program, it is illegal for Iraqi business to export anything, or import anything.

so, it's illegal to import anything but food to Iraq? so why are the kurdish areas which are also included into the embargo, full of electronics, etc. don't tell me they are "Made In Iraq".

It took 3 years before the US got involved at al in the minor affair that was the collapse of Yugoslavia: no, that does not explain why no great power wars.

Why no great power wars?
1) not worthwhile economically to anyone except the defence industries, which have influence, but not the strongest. there are many more lobbies, including pro-industrial ones.
2) Leaders don't go to war because of nothing. when they do, they pursue certain aims. It doesn't make any sense to go to war, and the people generally don't like getting killed.
3)MAD.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Arrian


You think that high population corresponds well with "care for the people?" I don't.

What I meant to say, though, is that in order for you to set up a democratic world government, pretty much everyone has to agree that democracy is the best system. We're a long way from that.

-Arrian

I agree it's a long way off, seemingly. History, however is rarely one ideology prevailing over another. It's more of a confrontation of ideas, which results in a compromise. Some people tend to believe that democracy and socialism is inemical, which is of course false. That is the fundamental question: how to ensure equality and freedom at the same time.

To make the system work, one would have to rid nations of nationalism, pretty difficult, even in etymological terms. There would have to be the establishment of a worldwide labor uniuon. And let's not kid ourselves, even though one wears white collars one is still a worker. This, however, is the least difficult part.

The harder part of the equation is to have a unified employer structure which can enter into direct negotiations with the workers.

If the world was governed by a true global market, all employer would naturally stick together. So that is the first thing to be done.

Edit: spelling

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap BUt this is not an issue of whether the US will attack them or not: most politics are local. India did not get nukes because it feared the US (or USSR) but China, and Pak got nukes cause of India.

Agreed. But your logic here only justifies proliferation. We understand the reasons for states aquiring them mostly involve genuine security concerns.

I assume China understands that if NK acquires nukes, so will South Korea, Japan and perhaps Taiwan. These actions in turn may cause the Philippines and Indonesia to acquire them. And so on and so on. Will China feel safer when states all around it have nuclear weapons?

While India may have acquired their own nukes because of China, their security went down to almost zero when Pakistan countered. Then last year, both those nuclear powers almost began our first nuclear war.

Is the world really a safer place with proliferation?

[Arrian]

It is indeed a long way off.

You shifted from a political system (demo) to an economic one (workers of the world, unite!). That's another thing that is hotly contested.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
The world certainly is at a crossroads. The fate of the world for the forseeable future will be dicided by what happens in the next few weeks or months. Two nations that have signed the NPT have sought to acquire nuclear weapons, and at least one of them, North Korea, has declared publicly that they have a right to do so.

GePap and others here argue that these states have an inherent right to nuclear weapons. I would assume therefor that they would also be in favor of a total withdrawal of UN inspectors from Iraq and an end to sanctions. In fact, one could view the original UN imposition of a requirement of disarmament in 1991 to be a violation Iraq's sovereign rights.

Will the world be a safer place if we follow the advice of GePap and others?

I personally do not think so.

I think Lincoln was faced once with a similar choice. Respect the sovereign rights of the seceded states, or resist their assertion of states rights for the greater good of the nation.

Should the world act against non cooperating states to prevent them from acquiring WoMD? That is the question that we face.

Ned:

As long as the US continues to fall well short of it's own obligations and promises under the NPT (1. Not aiming towards eventual full disarmament, 2. Stating that it reserves the right to use nukes against non-nuclear members, as it does under the new national strategy guide, an act that the NPT strictly forbids 3) tires to deny to states like Iran and Cuba the use of civilian nuclear energy, which all members and signatories to the NPT have a full right to) then it has 0 moral capital to act in the way you envision. Which is why the US is failing so badly to gain international support.

You are wrong about what I support in Iraq. I support any emasures that keep Iraq contained. The continued presence of inspectors, backed by the legitimacy of a full UNSC resoltuion, is just fine.

And you comparisons to Lincoln continue to be incorect. There is no supranational "state" here. It is very wrong to think of the international community as some sort of US of the World. A much better comaprison for the UN is the Continental congress of the 1770's: a collection of fully independent entities joined together for some immidiate purpose, or even at best, a group such as the 13 colonies under the articles of confederation from 1781-1789. Had one of those colonies wnated to leave the United States at that time, they could have, and none of the other 12 would have done much to keep them in.

I agree with you that we are coming to a crucial point in history: will the US forsake the international system it had a central hand in building, and try to create somehting on its own, endangering all the facets of the current one? The action you back against raq would only be a clear signal to all that the deal that lead to the NPT was off. If anyting, and invasion of Iraq without full UN backing will greatly weaken the structure of international anti-pproliferation, not make it stronger.

[Az]

see you guys tomorrow.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
It is indeed a long way off.

You shifted from a political system (demo) to an economic one (workers of the world, unite!). That's another thing that is hotly contested.

-Arrian

Au contraire, Its 'capitalists of the world unite.' Then there will be peace.

[Arrian]

Capitalists of the world, unite? Explain further.

-Arrian

[Ned]

GePap, I do not understand your distinction in the case of Iraq. Why does the UN have a right to demand that Iraq not acquire nuclear weapons? Why is Iraq different, for example, from North Korea? Both, after all, have launched aggressive wars.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
Capitalists of the world, unite? Explain further.

-Arrian

The tendency within all national economic systems have been towards monopoly. In the United States and other democratic states the government have implemented policies to counter monopolization. Seemingly this is to counter concentration of power - directed against the state, not the workers. Were workers to deal with a single entity they would naturally organize themselves on better terms because now they had a single entity they could negotiate with.

In a globalized system of a single monoply of ownership of all capital there would no longer be socalled competition - except there would, in fact, be competition in attracting workers to specific workplaces, based on pay and other niceties.

Also a monopolized global system would be loath of destroying it's own capital through wars and induced insurrection. War is in my oppinion a battle for markets.

Thus employing workers as soldiers to conquer the capital of a competitor would go out the window.

Now, of course it is up to the worker to ensure that competetion of beneficial workplaces does not degenerate into simple warfare. Here the organisational capabilties of the workers would be put to a test. However the loyalty towards the fellow worker would supercede any loyalty to the benefits of the workplace.

Hopefully.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, I do not understand your distinction in the case of Iraq. Why does the UN have a right to demand that Iraq not acquire nuclear weapons? Why is Iraq different, for example, from North Korea? Both, after all, have launched aggressive wars.

Ned:

The UN does not have the right to demand Iraq not build WMD, and that is not what is happening really.

Lets see if I can best explain that statement:

In 1990 Iraq broke the biggest rule of all, it invaded a neighbor without being able to come up with some "justification" that would have other leave it alone (as it had with Iran). When that war ended, specific terms were given to Iraq by the UN Sec Council about the conditions under which peace would come. When Bush decries what Iraq has done, it has very little to do with the NPT: Iraq simply has not complied (to the degree the US wants; if not other council members) with all the rules set up for it when the first Gulf War was called to an end.
The UN never had a peace treaty with N.Korea over the end of the Korean war. No pre-conditions were ever set. In fact, the main reasonf or the current crisis is not that N.Korea is somehow breaking the NPT, but the 1994 Agree Framework.

So, in both cases, of that of Iraq and N.Korea, the crisis has little to do at all with the NPT, but with other, far less voluntary diplomatic agreements.

If the US invades Iraq, and it installs a new regime, unless the US were to have a constitution written for Iraq that barred it from seeking WMD, the new Iraqi government would be free from current UNSC resolutions and would be free, to, within a few years, itself seek an exit from the NPT and move on. So when I support inspectors, it is all an issue of other, more important and legally binding treaties and diplomatic obligations than the NPT.