Ya know. Now that I’m thinking about this, it doesn’t really make sense. Syria would have opposed and with Russia, China, France, and Germany, that makes 5 opposing votes. So our administrations math doesn’t add up on this.
The last I heard, they were saying that we had 8 votes and 3 were on the fence.
That’s a brick or two shy of a load. You are ignoring states like Spain, who’s people were solidly opposed to war, as well as Turkey and others. Is it to be your contention that you approve of state leadership acting in contradiction to the will of the people? Working to persuade a people to adopt a course of action is one thing, that is leadership, and, as such, entirely legitimate. There are other words for substituting one’s own will for that of the people one purportedly represents.
Jdeforrest you may find this interesting. Funnily enough France and Germany should have been on that list as well as they allowed fly over rights etc and france said it would deploy troops if WOMD were used. This is stronger support than the majority of the Colition of the willing BTW.
I haven’t actually read any foreign opinion polls. Can you direct me to a good site where I can view some?
Really now?
The only confirmed votes, ex-the transparent ‘new math’ of the Administration were GB, Spain, US and as I recall Bulgaria. Four. Yes, count them four.
After many, many announcements that the tide was turning our way and much noise that ‘unreasonble vetos’ by France (and Russia and China?) would be ignored, suddently there was a shift and no vote was held.
Now what does that tell you, if you are not a congenital sucker for spin (that is december who will believe any lie Ari tells him)? It tells you that the public spin had little to do with the diplomatic reality.
Last you heard. Indeed. In a news conference I might guess.
I leave this to others to address.
I’ll see if I can dig up the old press stories that say exactly who signed on with us, but if you’ll be good enough to look at my second to last post, which should be the 4th post above this one, I just realized the math doesn’t work.
Well as I myself am not a diplomatic envoy, I tend to need the press to find out what’s going on in the world since I can’t ask other ambassadors first hand.
My reference was to one of Ari’s spin fests.
However, having been irritated by all this, some information conviently gathered from the BBC:
On the vote status on 7 March 03:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2827553.stm
See the links to voting intentions mid page, also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2845311.stm
Addressing december’s ad hoc assertions on the meaning of consequences:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2847929.stm
Notably:
Which matches commentaries from Economist and FT, among others.
On public opinion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2747175.stm
I’ve read that article before yojimbo. I try to keep a level head about all this and try to separate spin from reality. I chalk those lines up to face saving and playing up to the world community. They can’t really stand by while Iraq uses WoMD when they were arguing to wait some more on the situation. That would look very bad for them. It allows them to not have to admit they were mistaken should Iraq use WoMD. They could just send it the troops as promised.
See what gets me most about this is that France was actively campaigning against the US. They didn’t just say, "No we don’t support your resolution. They tried to convince others not to support our resolution. In the press article that started this thread, Powell said, “France said there’s nothing you can write that we wouldn’t veto.” That’s a pretty strong statement that I can’t agree with.
Not that I agree with how our administration went about things. I’m sure we did quite a bit of arm twisting to get those 40 countries to say they were behind us. While it may be a valid diplomatic tactic, it sure isn’t a pretty one and I’m not even sure it’s one that we want.
I do believe France should suffer a little for the intransigent position that they took against us. As another poster earlier on stated, I’m not mad at Mexico for not supporting us because they said their piece but didn’t try to rub it in our faces. France OTOH is the leading cause why this was was perceived as illegitimate IMO. Most people don’t support the war because the UN didn’t support the war. That’s not true. Some of the UN didn’t support the war and even if all the UN but France supported the war they could veto and still make the whole thing illegitimate. They are fueling the flames of anti-Americanism. Again, not that there isn’t some reason for people to be upset with us. GWB has to be the worst politician I’ve ever seen and has made blunders I would have previously thought impossible. IMO we did a good thing in Iraq and it got tainted by huge pissing match in the UN.
I am pretty ignorant of what world opinion on the situation is/was. I hear second hand reports that 80% of this country opposes and 65% of that country opposes, but I would rather see it in writing from a reputable source. I would like to see some polls that show public opinion in other countries (assuming that the polls were done in an unbiased scientific fashion) if someone could point me to a good source.
Would you please elaborate on how you believe it will be a)constructive and b)inevitable?
As for a), the president has decided to reside across the border in Switzerland while attending a summit in France. That in light of the fact that Switzerland has not only opposed the war verbally but actually stopped all arms exports to nations participating in the war, including of course the US. Is it constructive to show that you pee in someone’s champagne for the simple fact that they are the big guy, and no other reason at all?
As for b), the means of staging anything ‘inevitable’ against France and France alone are extremely limited for the US. For most issues that actually have an impact, the US deals with the EU first. Given the influence France has in the EU, that means that there is no way whatsoever to sideline France.
The problem is precisely that you, and Bush, have a different conception of what ‘acting like an ally’ looks like than Chirac and the vast majority of the French, and European in general, population. Is one acting like an ally when one lets you blunder into a major stupidity?
Benefits go both ways, and there is next to no way for the US to remove any meaningful benefits without a)hitting more than France and b)generating a major economic backlash. Europe has shown plenty of goodwill in the recent past as to compliance with WTO decisions. They are not wrapping a package of WTO approved punitive sanctions to counter US export subsidies. Would you rather want France to use its influence to lessen the blow a bit or to make the package as tough on the US as is possible within the limits the WTO has set?
What you miss here is that the vast majority of the world population believes that the US is acting grossly out of proportion, and behaving like the proverbial bull in a china shop striving to stomp anyone into the ground who is not 100% supporting US interests. Serious concerns have already been raised long before Iraq, with a European minister calling US foreign policy ‘simply insane’ as far back as the ‘You’re either with us or against us’ rethorics. Do you think it is beneficial for the US to * confirm * such impressions? The only constructive thing that would be achieved is making sure that anyone who has any kind of beef with the US will strive to close ranks with others to oppose the US, increasingly less because of specific grievances and increasingly more as a matter of principle. Screaming bloody murder and threatening retaliation for the simple fact that another nation doesn’t share the views and goals of the US is hardly a way to install respect. Forcing one’s goals on other nations by threat and/or blackmail, as the US has done by linking economic aid to support for US policy, is counterproductive to actual sharing of those goals, even if it ensures nominal support for them. In the long run, nominal support means zilch and whether you are perceived as the schoolyard bully on testosterone overload means a whole lot more.
France, however, said no such thing, and Russia also threatened a veto. France said that at this point in time, they will veto any resolution authorizing war, because at this point in time, they did not consider war justified, and any introducing an automatism towards war. I also don’t see why campaigning for support for their line is ‘what gets you most about this’. Is the US the only country allowed to campaign for support? Heck, the US blackmailed countries into support, threatening to cut foreign aid.
Sorry, but you’re grossly mistaken here. The US quite obviously did not get a majority in the Security Council, veto or no. Otherwise, they would have defied the opponents. France is not the only country that threatened a veto, Russia did so, too. More, the US is one of those permanent members that have used their veto power most often to stop undesirable resolutions, and as such complaining about a veto by France, which has been extremely careful using its veto powers, is mere
hypocrisy.
The vast majority of General Assembly members were likely against the war, too, based on the applause the French foreign minister got for his speech from the auditorium. Even the Russian foreign minister was applauded. As such, claiming that the UN did not support the war is likely factual even on an overall level. What matters, however, is the Security Council. That is what the UN charter states, and it establishes the veto powers, too. The US was instrumental in the writing of that charter, and complaining about it now is unlikely to be seen as a valid argument. If the rules state you have to get approval, including of all major powers, and you don’t get that approval, and do it anyway, then you are in violation of the rules.
The UN charter establishes as a basic principle the absolute primacy of peaceful means for the resolution of differences between nations. As such, any nation has the DUTY to go to any length necessary to resolve differences by peaceful means. More, the US actually went to the security council and presented evidence in support of its case that was later found to be misrepresenting the facts, and outdated in many cases. That in and of itself is an insult to the Council, and established in the eyes of many a disrespect for the Council. The fact that the US undermined the inspection process by ignoring the situation assessments of the inspectors and inundating them with bogus intelligence reinforced the impression that the US never had the intention to actually consult with others in the council, but expected a rubber stamping of the decisions it already made. The fact that the US tried to unilaterally reinterpret resolution 1441 in defiance of its co-authors merely supported the fact that the US had little respect for anyone else.
Those are the factors that make the vast majority of the population of democratic and many not so democratic nations consider the war illegitimate and a violation not just of the UN charter, but
the very principles the UN is founded on. That is why, outside the US, the lack of support for the war by the UN is not seen as a failure, and sign of incompetence of the UN, but as the UN sticking to its principles in defiance of US attempts to transform it into an instrument to rubber stamp US decisions.
The point is we wanted to put pressure on Iraq to cooperate. Blix himself said Iraq wasn’t cooperating fully. France cut the rug out from under our feet when they refused to even discuss war because that’s what we were threating them with. Even when Britain introduced the proposal to set steps to prove their compliance/noncompliance they immediately said they would veto that. What is Iraqs incentive to cooperate if there are no consequences?
It’s because it wasn’t enough to disagree with us and veto. They had to convince other people not to agree with us as well. Heaven forbid they should be the lone dissenter on the security council. And I already said that I don’t really approve of the tactics our administration took in regards to some countries. I can’t say it leaves a pretty taste in my mouth but it is a valid tactic. I can’t say it’s completely wrong to say to someone, “I have helped you and now it’s time to help me.”
Russia also didn’t travel to different member countries trying to dissuade them from siding with the US. We are free with our veto. Sometime I support it’s use as with the Kyoto treaty and other times I don’t. It’s also hard to compare war with cutting emissions though. I’d say the weight of this decision is what sets it apart from others.
We did work within the rules that are in effect. However, I think the system is outdated and I think the recent UN “crisis” has highlighted that fact. It’s not a democratic institution when one dissenting voice can override 14 others. I haven’t actually read the charter, which I will go do once I’m done posting this so I can argue whether it’s against the rules to go outside the UN.
Ok, I don’t know if the US intentional misrepresented the evidence which is an insult or it just didn’t check it which is just plain stupid but I agree that was a huge egg in our face. Other than the US saying Iraq does have a nuclear program when the inspectors were saying there is no evidence of that, I have no knowledge of the ignoring the inspectors or inundating them with false info. You’ll have to back that one up with a cite. I also don’t believe we tried to reinterpret 1441. I always read serious consequences to mean war. As I said earlier, I can’t think of what else it COULD mean. We agreed to consult with everyone before anything was undertaken and I believe we did that. Also, I do think the US went about it arrogantly like everyone else should just fall in line or shut up and I don’t think that helped the least.
All you games theory/Prisoner’s Dilemma people are missing something. Going to war in Iraq isn’t a case where one person is getting a reward and another person is denying it.
It’s a disagreement about whether to invade a country and kill thousands of people, whether to do nothing, or whether to continue inspecting Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The US argued for point number 1, while the rest of the world (including France) was pushing for option 3. Somehow everyone in the US thinks France was pushing for option 2. That’s not the case.
While the US may feel betrayed by France’s decision, France feels just as betrayed by the US-- because so far, it seems like the US was lying about WMD in order to have an excuse to invade.
I believe our point was that Iraq wasn’t cooperating with inspections. We offered a final chance to them and they took that with a grain of salt. Every time we ratched up pressure they gave a new consession. We stopped wanting to play that game, either they cooperate or they don’t. Blix even said they weren’t getting full cooperation. I can’t speak for other people, but it seems liked idiocy to me to increase inspections when the inspectors weren’t getting the cooperation they needed to succeed. For some reason most of the world was satisfied with partial cooperation.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
Well, I will concede that “payback” may be a harsher term than is appropriate but I beleive the concept is sound. Our displeasure needs to be expressed.
Sure Coll. Good payback is always tough to manage. One needs to do these things in a finite manner without burning bridges or creating an escalating cycle of recriminations.
Coll. I realize your point, but the fact is that we’re talking about France, not Russia or China or Australia or Great Britain. We’re talking about France. France needs us more than we need them. We do treat them as a privileged ally, and lately France has been pretty contrary in their dealings with us.
You’re going to have to be more specific about the WTO and steel tarrifs, and how we need France, because I’m not seeing it.
I don’t worry too much about diplomatic stances and poses , nor do I worry too much about what other people think, because ultimately I can’t control it. I will assume by nature that we will encounter resentment and opposition and bad feelings no matter what we do simply because of the position we hold in the world.
I don’t know where you get that. So far things seem to have gone much better than even the most wildly optimistic people dared hope. The one thing I haven’t heard out of any ranking administration official ever is that things would be easy and simple. Your quite wrong on this.
Well first off, there’s no reason to put it “in terms I can understand.” Secondly you’re analysis misses the mark. This baby had a lot of risk priced into the deal, a good portion of which is now gone. Players that refused the deal are now falling over themselves to get involved, witness Chirac’s turnaround where he applauds the downfall of the regime, and now the UN and everybody else wants a place at the table.
Thirdly, France did not just warn and balk at coming in on the deal. They tried to stop the deal completely. They did their best to screw it so it didn’t happen. I don’t doubt that they did this solely because their current deal was better than the new one being offered. France liked its position with Iraq.
Not coming in on it is one thing. Denouncing us and it for self-interest is another, and that treachery from an ally needs to be addressed because that is not the action of an ally.
I’m strictly big picture, long view here, Babes.
Getting all nice nice with France and smoothing things over quickly is the view that provides the short-term benefits.
JDForest:
Major stupidity? WTF? And yeah, not that that’s what it was, but even it is, that’s what an “ally” does. They back your play.
If you and Chirac have some other definition of ally that includes open opposition, denouncement, and trying to thwart the actions of your buddy, then you and he our welcome to it.
Yes. We do what’s right. We do what we need to. We are in a responsible position and that means we have responsibility for our actions. What we don’t have is responsibility for how other people think or feel about us. Foreign policy needs to be posess a little more integrity than simply kowtowing to posturing and posing. Anybody who goes through life worrying about what the Jones’ will think is an idiot.
We don’t care, we don’t have to care. We’re the Americans.
Care about what?
Who cares?
Sorry, but here you’re seriously kidding yourself. The EU is the biggest free market on the planet. It poses the majority of traded goods in the world, by far. Its export volume dwarfs that of the US. France is a major player in the EU. There is no way of dealing with the EU and not dealing with France.
Might be because you don’t read carefully, since you attributed my statements to someone else further down. France can influence whether the EU adopts a tough or a reconiliatory stance on any violation of WTO terms the WTO grants the EU the right to introduce punitive tariffs. That translates to France having the thumb on the US’s access to the European market.
And by doing so, you’re creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, because people who think of themselves only in terms of ‘the position they hold in the world’ are generally seen as full of themselves, especially when there is no basis whatsoever on the field at issue, like economy.
In fact, just recently, a member of the State department admitted that the degree of Shiite influence and resentment had been seriously underestimated.
The only surprise here is on your part, given that you obviously were grossly misinformed on Frances position. There is no turnaround involved WHATSOEVER.
A completely non-factual statement.
No, it’s not. They don’t back your play when it is neither to your nor to their advantage.
Your kind of definition of unquestioning, brainless support was instrumental in making WWI the carnage that it was. Being an ally works BOTH ways.
Sorry, but violating treaties galore has nothing, nothing at all, to do with integrity. Lying has nothing to do with integrity. And anybody who thinks he can have the gall to lie into the face of the Security Council and still get its support is not acting responsibly, but like an idiot. Yes, you have responsibility for your actions. For the violation of every single treaty you broke, for the lies, and for the dead.
**
Sorry, but that’s not factual. France did NOT refuse to even discuss war. They refused to discuss an automatism towards war, because it would put the decision out of the hands of the Security Council, which is a breach of the UN charter. Yes, Blix said that Iraq was not complying fully. The question is whether the degree of non-compliance is sufficient to justify a war. The majority of the Security Council quite obviously disagreed. Starting a war anyway puts the country in question on the same level as anyone else noncompliant.
Sorry, but you are misrepresenting the issue here. It’s not ‘I have helped you, and now it’s time to help me.’ France has helped these countries, too, and quite probably, given the distribution of foreign aid, quite a bit more than the US. It is ‘If you don’t support us, you will receive no aid from us whatsoever anymore’
And sorry, France was NOT the lone dissenter. All other major powers aside from the US and the UK dissented. As did Germany, and numerous other nations. It is, sorry to say, an utterly nationalistic argument to demand that the US be the only country that campaigns for support.
The veto has nothing to do with the Kyoto treaty. The US merely refused to become part of it, and sorry, the arguments against it are solely based on ignorance of both scientific and economic facts.
I would suggest you inform yourself on what issues the US used its veto, you would find that your argument here is totally baseles…
Whether the system is considered outdated by a single member is irrelevant. They are free to leave if they want, but obviously, they would lose their veto power in doing so, and plenty of other advantages. They’re also free to work towards a reform of the system, but quite obviously, the US is the last who would allow tossing the veto. Hey, I fully agree with you that the veto is bad. But you won’t ever see the day that the US will waive its veto right.
I am not just talking about the Nigeria connection (of which the White House had been informed by the CIA that it was questionable, but used it anyway). I am talking about using old photos of planes claiming they depict planes currently owned by Iraq. I am talking about presenting a sequence of satellite images as being taken in short succession when in fact there were weeks in between.
The inspectors went as far as to call the intelligence provided by the US as ‘garbage’. They were utterly irate at being led on wild goose chases, such as one building claimed to be a secret SCUD hangar, which turned out to be a chicken farm with a gate too narrow and a roof too low to ever have housed a SCUD.
Cf. e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
There is a very easy way to show it was a reinterpretation: 1441 is a recent resolution. Most of its authors are still on the council. If they had authorized war, you’d think they’d know, no? But they are adamant they didn’t.
The Security Council has to authorize war. Authorizing serious consequences is not authorizing war. There are numerous serious consequences provided for in the UN charter, such as suspension of UN membership benefits. In the past, the Security Council has used the term ‘any means necessary’ when authorizing war, but not the term ‘serious consequences’ -a UN authorized operation would not the least, as per UN charter, be coordinated with military committees at the UN, rather than one nation acting as it pleases. There is a very simple proof that the White House is quite aware that there is no UN authorization, and was merely making a sham argument: If it were a UN authorized action, it would be self-evident that it would be the UN who is coordinating the aftermath.
Threatening to stop sending your money to someone is now considered blackmail? Is that how people think in Europe? That explains a lot then.