France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[Adam Smith]

Here is an ARTICLE from the front page of today's Washington Post.

Moderate Powell Turns Hawkish On War With Iraq

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, long perceived as the Bush administration's most prominent moderate on Iraq, has turned hawkish in the past week.

Powell's shift, apparent in public statements and in private conversations with his aides, stems from his dismay at the French decision to publicly oppose military action and President Bush's growing belief that neither inspectors nor Saddam Hussein appear capable of disarming Iraq.

State Department officials said the environment has changed dramatically this month. Hussein, in Powell's eyes, has repeatedly passed up opportunities to demonstrate that the Iraqi regime will cooperate with the inspections, by taking such actions as thwarting overflights and making it difficult to have productive interviews with scientists. "Hussein has not warmed up to the [inspection] process for 12 years," one official said. "It's pie in the sky to think he'll have a change of heart now."

Even more crucial, officials said, was France's decision Monday to openly break with the United States a week before the inspection report was delivered.

Now that the French have jumped the gun, Clawson said, "they cut him off at the knees. It must have been terribly discouraging to him."

Smooth move for the european masters of diplomacy to shoot off their mouths before Blix had even presented his report. After being cut off at the knees by our supposed allies, Powell has to wonder why he even bothered.

[HershOstropoler]

Powell would not have been undercut if people were convinced the Bush administration actually wants disarmament, not just a pretext for war. Whether the french move was smart diplomatically remains to be seen.

[Adam Smith]

So you undercut the one person who might still have some leverage in that area?

[HershOstropoler]

If that person is seen as uninfluential, yes.

[Adam Smith]

Uninfluential enough to get Bush to go through the US into the UN process in the first place.

[HershOstropoler]

- I'd rather see that merit with very lackluster support for war among US voters.

- Uninfluential or unwilling enough to determine the admin's decision. I think it's firmly in the hand of Rove and co, but I might be a touch too cynical.

[GePap]

So I leave, and the thread goes to hell: lesson to self: don't go to sleep, police thread!

I find it ammusing at best when peole bash the French for jockying to best serve their interests. How many nations retain a placein the first tier of world powers for around 700 years, without having a policy based on always trying to shift the issue to their greatest advantage? None.

The French are interested in a word situation in which they feel their aims and interests are protected; they will do what they can to maintain their position. Now, Americans get all sanctimoniuos about this, since they like to see themselves as a people of God with a manifest destiny to make everything better: Americans are a pious people who never want anyting bad to happen to anyone else, angels who only acts to help others, never interested in their own selfish aims, out to make this world God's City on a Hill. So of course, the French, who happily inhabit this world, a world of cruelty, vice and selfishness must be low down and dirty.

There s a little problem with that annalysis: the world is dirty, cruel, full of selfishness and other vices. The sanctimonius American stance is a great reason for so much anti-Americanism because it is inherently a lie. When you see the US about to invade Iraq, claiming it has to, and then doing nothing to N.Korea (I agree with not comfronting N.korea militarily) they ask themselves: why? And they ususally think, pick on the weak ones. When they see the US stand up as a champion of the UN, but then say nothing about its own allies who are at different levels of ignoring the UNSC, people question the sincerity of the US stance.

You can't be sanctimonious unless you you are spick and span. The US isn't, so are sanctimoniousness comes out as peevishness, the rantings of spoiled brats. The French might be "slimy" but everyone knows you only stay in the game so long by being that way.


Now, on more specific issues:

Dino is correct, UNSCR 1441 does not call for a smoking gun. It also does not call for the "serious consequences" to mean an all out invasion with regime change in mind. 1441 passed unanimously 'cause it is vague on many points. Everyone voted for it, cause evryone saw in it a way to back their own divergent policies. Now, differing, though equaly valid (or equaly unvalid) interpretations come to the fore. All I can say is, No sh*t Sherlock.

As for what Faded said: yes, the French, Russians and Chinese armed the Iraqis: no, Saddam has no F-16's, they all belong to the Saudis....
The US was never close to Saddam: it only reopened diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1983 (with Rummies trip to shake with Saddam). BUt of course, the US had no problems with the French, Russians, and Chinese selling Iraq weapons to kill Iranian with, so our "sanctimoniousness" on this issue should only go so far.

As for the point with Powell:

The French have put him on the spot. From my point of view, Powell, who has never (and still isn't) been convinced of the full implications of the coming war was able to argueback in spet. that going the UN route would be best, since it builds up international support for an enterprise he saw was fated to happen. I am sure he alwasy felt that after a certain point, he would be able to, having gone through the UN, get at least aquiescence from the French, Russians and Chinese for the enterprise, and thus be able o point to the correctness of his stance over the hardliner's. Now, the French have pulled the rug out from under him. I think he miscalculated the cohersive and covincing powers of the US. Now the hardliners have the upper hand.

I can only sympathize with Powell, between a rock and a hard place.

[Az]

You might still want to explain what exactly the german government should have done?

what do you mean "should have done"? should have done to change public opinion in Germany, or should have done as the most moral course of action?

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by GePap
Now the hardliners have the upper hand.

In part because the French and Germans did not leave Powell and other (US and UK) moderates without any bargaining chips.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
In part because the French and Germans did not leave Powell and other (US and UK) moderates without any bargaining chips.

Once the steamroller gets going, moderates never have any chips left to play with.

[lord of the mark]

" Dino is correct, UNSCR 1441 does not call for a smoking gun. It also does not call for the "serious consequences" to mean an all out invasion with regime change in mind. 1441 passed unanimously 'cause it is vague on many points. Everyone voted for it, cause evryone saw in it a way to back their own divergent policies. Now, differing, though equaly valid (or equaly unvalid) interpretations come to the fore. All I can say is, No sh*t Sherlock. "

My sense is that 1441 was not more explicit because the French and Russians didnt want to give the US a pass to go to war in the event there was an ambiguous Iraqi response - eg if the Iraqi docuement of Dec 8 had been largely accurate, but with a few omissions. Certainly if the US had known that even with the glaring Iraqi non-compliance of the last three monthswe would still have to face a french veto at this point, we would have never have settled for such vague wording. That is why Powell is so outraged. And that is something that will be discussed with everyone, in the US and abroad, who is supportive but reluctant to act without UNCS approval. It will likely also have at least medium term implications for US relations with France and Germany.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
My sense is that 1441 was not more explicit because the French and Russians didnt want to give the US a pass to go to war in the event there was an ambiguous Iraqi response - eg if the Iraqi docuement of Dec 8 had been largely accurate, but with a few omissions. Certainly if the US had known that even with the glaring Iraqi non-compliance of the last three monthswe would still have to face a french veto at this point, we would have never have settled for such vague wording. That is why Powell is so outraged. And that is something that will be discussed with everyone, in the US and abroad, who is supportive but reluctant to act without UNCS approval. It will likely also have at least medium term implications for US relations with France and Germany.

I think this is exactly on point. The only possible cautionary note is that Blix and his people may make a pursuasive case for continued inspections. I heard today that they will give Saddam a B for compliance.

However, the story about death threats to the scientists and their families, and the continued denial of U2 surveilance, tells me that further inspections are doomed to failure. But the SC may be pursuaded to give Saddam an ultimatum on these two issues.
Fleischer, in today's White House briefing said as much. If France and Germany are serious about continued inspections, they would surely support such an ultimatum.

[GePap]

On a timeline:

The issue is this:

According to 1441, the inspectors report on monday, the 28th of january. But the resolution also speaks of a report to come in Mid. March. Now, the German's are out for the count. They won't join. Now that leaves the French, Russians, and Chinese. Now, if on Moday Blix says Iraqi complience has been poor AND he believes that it can't possibly get better, these three might think about supporting the US now. If Blix says that cooperation has been poor BUT that he thinks things might improve somewhat in the future, and that he would like some more time, then the French, Chinese and Russians could very easily clamor to wait for the Mid march report. After all, what do a few more weeks difference make? If the Iraqis don't comply further, then the case for allowing the US to go to war might be better by then.

THis whole furor stated when the admin. begun to say, a couple of weeks back: "the inspectors are failing, time is running out, Jan. 28th last chance". Why should it be the last chance, if 1441 calls for a further report come March? What possible explinaion for this talk, from washington could there be, other than the fact that the military buildup under way is ready by mid. February and that the Pentagon has made it clear it want war to happen during the cool months. That talk has given the impresions that the white houe is more interested in military timetables than diplomatic ones. That is abig reason the French have said: HOLD ON THERE MISTER.

[SpencerH]

Here's an interesting link on the French point of view and why they may (will) join the coalition.

[Ned]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Here's an interesting link on the French point of view and why they may (will) join the coalition.

Interesting link. It does prove how France has maneuvered itself into the leading player in the Franco-German axis and how it will next support the invasion so that it will continue to be a player in the post-Saddam ME.

Very cynical, but very smart at the same time.

[GeneralTacticus]

Well, that *IS* the way you get ahead in international politics, after all...

[Adam Smith]

Couple of items from yesterday's Washington Post.

European officials have apparently acknowledged in private that Iraq does have hidden chemical and biological weapons

UN officials indicated that there has been at least one case where Iraq removed materials from an inspection site before UN inspectors arrived. US officials appear to take this as an indication of security leaks in the inspection process.

[Maroule]

interesting article, and Vinocur knows his stuff (he lived in paris for ages, I met him when I was a trainee in the IHT, nice guy BTW).

It's typical power play from a nation with limited means but a lot of experience. As an additional news, I can give you an interesting item : an unofficial rumour here is that several top french troops are preparing for a conflict in a desert zone (and repainting their tanks accordingly) while the French minister of defence is busy negotiating which part of the front the french troops would intervene.

[GePap]

So war by March.....

I wonder if TV coverage will be as widespread as in 1991. I can't see today's military puting on the same type of shows as last time: we got few nice bomb camera picks back from Afghanistan. At the same time, there's going to be a lot of cameras in Baghdad, and I think the Army will find it almost impossible to control video footage from that city. Would US networks show much of it? I am unsure.

Back on 'topic': Blix is unhappy about Saddam's 'cooperation'. No one mentioned what El Baradei said, but maybe he said nothing. I don't think this report will change anyones minds (Blix says he is unhappy, but he is training more inspectors, openning new offices), so the current tango cotinues.

While the inspections surely contain Saddam, they won't lead to disarmamment. What incentive does Saddam have? Avoiding war? Does anyone really think that's going to happen? From Saddam's point of view, there is no longer any incentive, positive, or negative, to disarm. The US is going to invade anyway, might as well have the stuff, maybe even use it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Maroule,

So whats your opinion about why the French are so opposed to ousting Hussein?

What I'm interested in here is what's the opinion on the 'street' in France. Is it just typical euro-leftist opposition to anything from Washington, or something else?

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap

While the inspections surely contain Saddam, they won't lead to disarmamment. What incentive does Saddam have? Avoiding war? Does anyone really think that's going to happen? From Saddam's point of view, there is no longer any incentive, positive, or negative, to disarm. The US is going to invade anyway, might as well have the stuff, maybe even use it.

GePap, I do not believe even France will call for inspections that have no end. The goal is disarmament.

I don't know what kind of resolution the UN could now issue to force Saddam into voluntary compliance. But, if inspections continue, it should be clear that Saddam must cooperated fully - the scientists and their families should be allowed to leave Iraq and the U2 overflights should be permitted. I cannot see how the inspections should be continued the way they are being conducted to date. The SC should make it clear what more is needed.

The French may be biding their time, though, 'til Bush's State of the Union speech tomorrow. But after that, I suspect they will move closer to the US position.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The best thing to is to keep a man there warming the seat and waving the veto sign. Then you simply refuse to give the U.N. any more money; since the U.S. provides 60%-70% of the funds this will definitely impact the U.N. and best of all the U.N. can't do anything without passing a new resolution. A resolution which the U.S. can veto.

The UN member countries' contributions are based on GDP, IIRC, and an individual country's funding is capped at 22% of the total. The US is paying 22% of the total currently. Germany is paying 9.8%. Japan is paying 19.6%. Canada is paying 2.57%

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/...et/large02.htm

[Oerdin]

That's the general fund but it doesn't take into account peace keeping missions like Bosnia and Kosovo in which the U.S. is the biggest contributor. Thus the real amount is much higher then the nominal 22%.

[KrazyHorse]

Finally found a source.

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itp...e/pj2peace.htm

The five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) are assessed at 20 percent above the basic scale. The United States is assessed the largest amount of any country -- 25 percent of the U.N. regular budget and 31 percent of U.N. peacekeeping costs. The U.S. Congress -- in legislation that took effect October 1, 1995 -- limited the U.S. payment to no more than 25 percent of peacekeeping costs; the amount of the U.S. assessment is currently under negotiation between the United States and the United Nations. The next highest contributors to U.N. peacekeeping are Japan (15.5 percent), Germany (9 percent), France (7.9 percent), the United Kingdom (6.6 percent), and the Russian Federation (5.5 percent). Most countries are assessed less than 0.1 percent of the costs.

As the US recently successfully negotiated a lowering of its contribution to the general fund, I'm assuming that their peacekeeping assessment was similarly reduced to something like 26.4%

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That's the general fund but it doesn't take into account peace keeping missions like Bosnia and Kosovo in which the U.S. is the biggest contributor. Thus the real amount is much higher then the nominal 22%.

Aha... well, what is the US share of the peacekeepers in Kosovo and Bosnia?