Will the French and/or Russians veto?

[Spiffor]

Chirac held an official 30 minutes interview on both major channels today, which was exclusively about the war in Iraq (except for a 2 minutes blurb about domestic policies).

He explained that a permanent member of the UNSC always vetoes when it votes no. And Chirac said he'll vote no personally, i.e veto. Sure, "Chirac is a known liar and cheat. I don't think we should trust him". But such an involvement one day before the vote, and in front of the whole French audience is enough of a hint.
There is an extremely strong domestic pressure on Chirac to veto : the whole political class is against the war, from the Communists to Le Pen, at the exception of a nearly insignificant politician (Alain Madelin). If Chirac chickens out tomorrow, he'd offer an impressive chance to the left of criticizing him.
This is not only party politics. The French public opinion is outstandingly against the war, considers the US is guilty of the current diplomatic crisis (81%), have a very poor opinion of Bush (82%), and mostly support a veto (69% for, 24% against ; all those figures have been displayed at French TV today).
Also, there is a pressure from other anti-war European countries, especially Germany. If France doesn't want to ruin its newly reborn marriage with Germany, it cannot back off at the very end.

It is extremely unlikely Chirac chickens out tomorrow. He'll very, very probably vote no.

[lightblue]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2838269.stm

France has joined Russia in declaring itself ready to veto a new UN resolution which gives Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein until 17 March to disarm.
French President Jacques Chirac said his country would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war.

Mr Chirac's comments echoed an earlier statement by the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, who said his country would vote against the draft resolution proposed by the US and the UK.

The stance by France and Russia - both veto-wielding members of the Security Council - is a severe blow to US aims of securing UN backing for quick military action against Iraq.

In a day of frantic diplomatic activity, President George W Bush has been telephoning foreign leaders in an attempt to garner support for the resolution.

The Security Council resumed consultations on Monday, but the new resolution is not expected to be put to the vote until Wednesday at the earliest.

Guees that puts the cat among the pigeons, though that might be the wrong metaphor to chose...

[Agathon]

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

-=Vel=-

Fair enough. I didn't say that I agreed with the guy, but it's made me think harder about it.

[DanS]

the Saddam business is just the start of an extreme unilateralist policy which IMHO would be a disaster

The Saddam business has a wide coalition, even without UN approval. Hardly unilateral.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


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.

He might be right if we were talking about what is really in the interests of the US, rather than the lunacy being promoted by Bush and co.

[PLATO]

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

http://lincolnplawg.blogspot.com/

Agathon, this is the type situation that I have been arguing all along. The French Resistance is nothing more than a power play.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Agathon
He might be right if we were talking about what is really in the interests of the US, rather than the lunacy being promoted by Bush and co.

I like that: "what is really in the interests of the US".

[Oerdin]

The French have said they'd be against any resolution that has an automatic trigger, Russia says they are against the resolution in its current form, and China said they oppose a resolution. Blair today started talking about ways to change the resolution so as to make it more paletable to the 3rd party countries and Bush said he's open to negotiated changes so here's my new prodiction.

France vetos no matter what changes are made because Chirac has personnally invested to much political capital in this to do anything else. China abstains so as not to unnecissarially upset the Americans, Russia may veto or may be convinced to abstain if the U.K./U.S. make a few changes to the resolution. Since the resolution is going to be vetoed the U.S./U.K. are going to make their new goal to try and get as close to the magic nine votes as possible.

They'll do this because that will provide them Bush & Blair with some measure of political cover when the go after Saddam despite French objections. We'll hear things like "we almost passed the resolution but the French vetoed it. I'm not going to let our foreign policy be held hostage by internal French politics".

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DanS
The Saddam business has a wide coalition, even without UN approval. Hardly unilateral.

This coalition-even-without-UN argument is repeated so often, but in essence it's bogus. After all, the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union also in a "coalition". IIRC, Italians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc. were all there.

Disclaimer: not that I am comparing the US to Nazi Germany, or against a unilateral US action in Iraq.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The French have said they'd be against any resolution that has an automatic trigger, Russia says they are against the resolution in its current form, and China said they oppose a resolution. Blair today started talking about ways to change the resolution so as to make it more paletable to the 3rd party countries and Bush said he's open to negotiated changes so here's my new prodiction.

France vetos no matter what changes are made because Chirac has personnally invested to much political capital in this to do anything else. China abstains so as not to unnecissarially upset the Americans, Russia may veto or may be convinced to abstain if the U.K./U.S. make a few changes to the resolution. Since the resolution is going to be vetoed the U.S./U.K. are going to make their new goal to try and get as close to the magic nine votes as possible.

They'll do this because that will provide them Bush & Blair with some measure of political cover when the go after Saddam despite French objections. We'll hear things like "we almost passed the resolution but the French vetoed it. I'm not going to let our foreign policy be held hostage by internal French politics".

This is a good analysis. I had originally thought that the French would lobby for some face saving changes to the resolution and eventually support it. It appears that Chirac is has generated such nationalistic support that the French would veto anything that was proposed at this point or look as if they were caving in to the Americans.

It does seem sad that France has lost what is really important here. (Eliminating a threat to the world.) It now seems to all be about French "stature" in the world.
Sad.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


Agathon, this is the type situation that I have been arguing all along. The French Resistance is nothing more than a power play.

Look - all of it is a power play. I don't dispute that. I just think one side's power play is less odious than the other's.

And to be fair both power plays in this situation have an efficient internal logic to them and some means of dealing with unexpected events - unlike the Toronto Maple Leafs' power play, for example.


BTW - here's one to add to the "lame article of the week" archive.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DCBB.htm

I can't understand this twit - I mean he attacks an extremely simple version of the "war for oil" argument that most people don't hold (I got my oil argument from a right wing hawk) and then offers his own analysis, that it is "internal crises" that are forcing Bush to act.

Isn't this a "wag the dog" argument?

[GePap]

The changes they have to make to even get 9 votes are: first, add a list of markers which would be the signs Iraq is disarming, and perhaps, extend the deadline: after all, since they are pushing back the voting date, if they vote on it on wensday, that give Iraq only 5 days after the resoltuion passes.

I do think Chirac has staked much politically (like Bush, who must go to war now). I do think that if the French veto, while the Us public will be satisfied, the British public won't be....

Also, on Vel's comment: There is not so much money to be made in Iraq..and the costs will outweight any "profit" for a long time, if we ever do make a "profit" out of it.

As for PLATO's point: perhaps the French think the real threat is the war, not Saddam....

[Sten Sture]

I am currently thinking that the French veto anything stance is making modifications to the resolution more likely. Push the date back to April 17th, include steps for compliance, appoint more inspectors, etc and then make the French veto with the only 'no' vote. Sounds vaguely plausable.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sten Sture
I am currently thinking that the French veto anything stance is making modifications to the resolution more likely. Push the date back to April 17th, include steps for compliance, appoint more inspectors, etc and then make the French veto with the only 'no' vote. Sounds vaguely plausable.

I think this would be a wise move by US/UK. I don't think it is going to happen. Both sides positions are to hardened now.

GePap: I really did try to give the French the benefit of the doubt. I think that the evidence is mounting day by day that it is not the war or Saddam that they fear. I am more convinced than ever that this is an attempt by France to reestablish itself as a world power. In this type of struggle, neither side will be able to blink.

[PLATO]

Agathon, Interesting article. definately aluding to a wag the dog scenario. I do not think it makes an effective case, however.

[GePap]

And what has France done to "prove" this? Certainly the French wish to maintain or imporve their situation in the world (so does every single state including the US), but I do believe it when they French state that they think the US is going to destabilize the region without thinking very hard about the aftermath.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
I really did try to give the French the benefit of the doubt. I think that the evidence is mounting day by day that it is not the war or Saddam that they fear. I am more convinced than ever that this is an attempt by France to reestablish itself as a world power. In this type of struggle, neither side will be able to blink.

You are mostly right. The French extreme position comes from the willingness to become #1 in the anti-war fashion, and to prove who's the boss with Germany in the EU (well, it backlashed). The imperialistic problems over oil could have been negociated if France and US didn't go on each other's nerves.

However, at the beginning, France and the US didn't oppose that strongly. France's position, at its core, has remained consistent from last Summer : a war must be avoided as long as all peaceful attempts have not been exhausted. It was the French position when 1441 was written, and it remains the same. France never rejected the use of force on principle.
The motivations from the French position 6 months ago remain approximately the same : an American war would destabilize the region, help terrorists to get support (i.e money and manpower), and will enbitter the Clash of Civilizations, which we absolutely want to avoid (if only because the biggest minority in France is Arabic).

Now, Chirac and de Villepin took the opportunity, and milked as many benefits as they could by opposing the US. It could have been a good idea to oppose the US in the backstage, to prevent the chickenhawks from doing too much ruckus, but it would have brought much less international prestige to France in the past months, and it would have brought much, much less domestic and international support to Chirac.

[Az]

And what has France done to "prove" this? Certainly the French wish to maintain or imporve their situation in the world (so does every single state including the US), but I do believe it when they French state that they think the US is going to destabilize the region without thinking very hard about the aftermath.

I guess this is the heart of the dispute between rational thinkers on both sides.

I, personally, don't know whether I support the war or not, since I don't know what the US plans to do next, what kind of government will follow the war.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
And what has France done to "prove" this? Certainly the French wish to maintain or imporve their situation in the world (so does every single state including the US), but I do believe it when they French state that they think the US is going to destabilize the region without thinking very hard about the aftermath.

It depends on how you define proof. I believe that the French intransigence against setting any kind of "drop dead" deadline is in direct contrast to their vote on 1441. At that time, the French Abassador stated that another resolution would be needed in the case of Iraqi non compliance. Blix has stated repeatedly that Iraq is not complying fully. Blix has also stated that Compliance is getting better. Threat of military pressure worked. If France was seriously interested in peacefully disarming Iraq, they would propose a time table for the disarmament (perhaps the set of benchmarks proposed by the English) and determine Iraqi seriousness to disarm. At some point they would have to back up 1441. They are unwilling to do this because this could be seen as caving in to American desires. The logical conclusion is that it has become about power and not Iraq.

[GePap]

States are free to disagree about the meaning of 1441. An on the issue of other resolutions: the current one sets a one week deadline, and as it stands, oit doesn;t even state what real disarmament in that timeframe means..for example, lets say on March 15 Iraq brings out 20,000 pages of documents it says give all the proof necessary to show it had disamrned, and gives in alist of 200 names of people to interview, maps, so forth and so on. Could such info be annalyzed in 2 days.. to make sure it is correct and valid and not some ruse to reset the clock? Could you then go cheak up on every place to test the soil.to prove or disprove the claims?

A march 17 deadline is absurd, if you still think peaceful disarmament is possible. Now, for the US and UK, since they expect to go to war, this is fine and dandy. What about everyone else?

[PLATO]

Spiffor, Your analysis is as always logical and insightful. Here is where I take exception. The French position on destabilization and increased terrorism is, in my opinion, based upon an assumption of a failed Iraqi occupation not on the war itself. The US position is based on a successful Iraqi occupation.

If these assumptions are correct then France is correct in its position to the point of imminent military action. At that point they should begin supporting what needs to be done to make sure that an occupation is sucessful. The French have effectively removed the UN as a legitimate partner in the reconstruction once they actually use their veto. If they come to the proverbial 11th hour and abstain then I will believe that this is about the items you mentioned. If they press forward with their veto, then I maintain that their primary concern is French power and not regional stability.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Agathon, Interesting article. definately aluding to a wag the dog scenario. I do not think it makes an effective case, however.

That's why I thought it was rubbish.

[Agathon]

From this I think we can agree that the French are clearly superior players when it comes to diplomacy. They have managed to paint themselves as the reasonable party and have managed to humiliate both the US and Britain who seem unable to recapture the moral high ground.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
States are free to disagree about the meaning of 1441. An on the issue of other resolutions: the current one sets a one week deadline, and as it stands, oit doesn;t even state what real disarmament in that timeframe means..for example, lets say on March 15 Iraq brings out 20,000 pages of documents it says give all the proof necessary to show it had disamrned, and gives in alist of 200 names of people to interview, maps, so forth and so on. Could such info be annalyzed in 2 days.. to make sure it is correct and valid and not some ruse to reset the clock? Could you then go cheak up on every place to test the soil.to prove or disprove the claims?

A march 17 deadline is absurd, if you still think peaceful disarmament is possible. Now, for the US and UK, since they expect to go to war, this is fine and dandy. What about everyone else?

GePap: If we were starting at "Time zero" right now then a March 17 deadline would be absurd. 1441 has been in effect for months. At what point do you draw the line? In order to gain French support, I would not be against more time (as long as a definate time limit was set). The US position is that after months of documented non-compliance, why wait?

[The Vagabond]

Actually, if you look at it from another angle, France and Germany's opposition may be a healthy thing for the Western organism as a whole, assuming that this organism won't fall apart as a result (and it won't). Indeed, if the West were united in attacking Iraq, it would cause a horrid impression upon the rest of the world and the public in the Western countries themselves. France and Germany's stance helps to soften the perception and release some steam.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
The French have effectively removed the UN as a legitimate partner in the reconstruction once they actually use their veto.

Why? I don't see any contradiction between the French veto and the UN being a legitimate partner in the post-war reconstruction. The fact that the UN doesn't approve the war doesn't mean that the UN (and France for that matter) can't subsequently participate in the post-war activities.

[Spiffor]

Plato :
I will disagree with you on one point. This war isn't solely about Iraq, but can have ramfications on the whole Arabic world, if it gets percieved as a US/western agression against the Muslims. Given the poor pro-war PR, such ramifications can happen.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
If [the French] press forward with their veto, then I maintain that their primary concern is French power and not regional stability.

This is, IMO, completely true. Chirac will most probably veto because of everything he has said until now, including in a very official occurence today in front of the French people.
France's motivations have shifted : they were at the beginning the betterment of the resolution of the crisis, but they now are France's power and Chirac's support, because Chirac has decided to milk the crisis in his favour, rather than trying to effectively minimize the rampage the chickenhawks are out to do.
Sure, France's noble motivations are the mantra of our diplomats even now, but I am pretty sure these diplomats are as sincere as Bush's when he pretends the war is about liberating the Iraqi people : pure PR.
In short : France's motivations have become ugly now, but haven't been ugly at the beginning.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Spiffor
France's motivations have shifted : they were at the beginning the betterment of the resolution of the crisis, but they now are France's power and Chirac's support, because Chirac has decided to milk the crisis in his favour, rather than trying to effectively minimize the rampage the chickenhawks are out to do.

But what can France actually do in order to effectively minimize the rampage?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Agathon
From this I think we can agree that the French are clearly superior players when it comes to diplomacy. They have managed to paint themselves as the reasonable party and have managed to humiliate both the US and Britain who seem unable to recapture the moral high ground.

Agathon: The French have always been superior diplomatic players. Unfortunately they have many times been unable to translate a diplomatic victory into tangible results.

They are, in fact, taking a great risk right now. If they are unsuccesful in stopping war and incorrect about the consequences then I maintain that they will suffer a major diplomatic defeat.

The consequences of losing this struggle are much greater for them than for the US.

[Agathon]

They've already won a major diplomatic victory. They have put the United States in a much weaker position when it inevitably comes to the SC to beg for help in the reconstruction of Iraq.

What can the US do to the French anyway? Nothing of substance.