# The US backs down on UN Resolutions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 17, 2002, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711 "2002-10-17T18:55:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/1 "2002-10-17T18:55:50Z")
[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20021017/ap\_on\_re\_mi\_ea/un\_iraq\_43](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20021017/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_43) The US seems ready for a compromise in the UN along the lines of the two-resolution approach proposed by the French. They have dropped the demand for explicity military threats in the first resolution. Inspectors will be given a chance to do their work first. This is excellent news. There have been several indications that Iraq is prepared to re-admit inspectors. If it has the good sense to co-operate with them, war will likely be averted. Let’s see. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/2 "2002-10-17T19:19:46Z")
OTOH there is this report from Fox News: > [@](#): > > UNITED NATIONS — American diplomats on Thursday disputed reports that the United States was “backing down” in its demand for a single U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. > > In contrast, the diplomats predicted that the toughly worded message to Saddam Hussein that the U.S. wants will be passed by the U.N. Security Council. > > “Not only are we not backing off a single resolution,” a diplomatic source told Fox News, “we are going to get one.” [http://www.foxnews.com/printer\_friendly\_story/0,3566,65956,00.html](http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,65956,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/3 "2002-10-17T19:49:57Z")
Interesting though even the Fox article says that the US is dropping any explicity military wording in its resolution and instead talking about “consequences”. That appears to be a significant compromise. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39857-2002Oct17.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39857-2002Oct17.html) This WP article quoting both US and UN sources is perhaps the most auhthorititave. It explains the concessions made but says that the US still reserves the option to act alone later on. But that has always been true. In practice it’s going to be awfully hard for the US to go to war if inspectors are in Iraq and working smoothly. So in practice I think this is a significant climb-down from the US though obviously US diplomats won’t say so openly. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/4 "2002-10-17T22:22:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\*So in practice I think this is a significant climb-down from the US though obviously US diplomats won’t say so openly. \*\* You may be right. WaPo makes it sound like Bush may be ready to agree to a resolution that permits watered-down, ineffective inspections in order to get the French to agree. I would guess the Bush people have calculated that the compromise resolution is onorous enough that Saddam will not fulfill his side. In particular that part about allowing interviews of scientists outside the country. That’s the only thing that makes sense to me. Why else would Bush agree to inspections that won’t work – particularly with the example of North Korea staring everybody in the face? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/5 "2002-10-17T23:37:58Z")
“-- particularly with the example of North Korea staring everybody in the face?” So that’s why Rove OK’d the bomb story for release last night ? I was wondering why they had waited so long to make the news public. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/6 "2002-10-17T23:52:17Z")
To the best of my knowledge North Korea didn’t have inspections of the type and magnitude proposed in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/7 "2002-10-18T00:37:18Z")
No, but North Korea is a great example of a situation where the US tried to broker a peaceful, diplomatic resolution with a violent dictator, only to have the dictator completely undermine the agreement and develop WMDs on the sly. It’s evidence that diplomacy isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/8 "2002-10-18T01:07:14Z")
“It’s evidence that diplomacy isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be.” So what would you have done in North Korea? Fought a war with it which would probably have destroyed Seoul? Besides “diplomacy” isn’t a single fixed solution. What the Korean example shows is that the precise diplomatic solution in that case was likely the wrong one; that doesn’t necessarily mean that there was no other suitable diplomatic solution: one with more inspections for instance. Since the diplomatic option with Iraq involves tougher inspections requirements anyway, the Korean experience is not that relevant as an argument against it. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/9 "2002-10-18T01:15:50Z")
> [@](#): > > **ElJeffe** says that: the US tried to broker a peaceful, diplomatic resolution with a violent dictator, only to have the dictator completely undermine the agreement and develop WMDs on the sly. It’s evidence that diplomacy isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be. What he neglects to mention is that it has also been some time since the US lived up to up to its part of the agreement. (Look in [this GQ thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=139966) for a few examples of NK’s complaints about inadequate implementaion of the deal) American conservative circles have plotted for years to undermine the 94 deal. It’s hardly fair that, now that they’ve got their way, they try to pass the blame off on the financially injured party. Kim Jong Il is a violent dictator, but that doesn’t necessarily make him a gullible fool. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/10 "2002-10-18T01:48:30Z")
I think it breaks down like this: France, China & Co. couldn’t care less about the “dignity” of Iraq. They are mostly concerned with tying the U.S. into a multilateral system that lets them punch above their weight in dealing with the U.S. They’re afraid that if they pass a single resolution spelling out the consequences of refusing to fully cooperate, the U.S. will use this resolution as the authorization it needs once the _U.S._ decides that the weapon’s inspections aren’t working. Russia isn’t quite as concerned about this (they’re more worried about ensuring that Iraq’s substantial foreign debt to Russia is paid off.) The important thing for France, China & co. is to be obeyed. Therefore, I predict that the second resolution authorizing the use of force has already been drafted and that specific conditions authorizing the U.S. to bring it to the Security Counsel have already been agreed to. Paradoxically, this under-the-table approach makes war more likely. If the Security Counsel really wanted these inspections to work, they’d find a way to leave Iraq no wiggle room at all. Holding out even the tiniest hope to Iraq that it can somehow avoid a U.S. invasion short of immediate and abject compliance is a big mistake. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/11 "2002-10-18T01:54:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \*American conservative circles have plotted for years to undermine the 94 deal. It’s hardly fair that, now that they’ve got their way, they try to pass the blame off on the financially injured party. Actually American conservatives have said for years that NK was secretly continuing their nuclear weapons development despite their agreement not to do so. Now that the conservatives have been proved right, they deserve congratulations, not blame. The blame goes primarily to NK for breaking their word and secondarily to Clinton (with Carters’s help) for signing a deal that foolishly trusted them to keep their word. However, regardless of past fault, the situation today is what it is, and we need to decide how to deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/12 "2002-10-18T02:17:54Z")
“the situation today is what it is” Agreed. The rest of your post is part of one of those chicken-egg arguments. I don’t think that this thread is the place to try to resolve it. I merely wished to point out that there are alternatives to ElJeffe’s “diplomacy failed” theory. ---
**Author:** ![Henry\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/d78d45/32.png) [@Henry\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henry_B)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2002, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-backs-down-on-un-resolutions/132711/13 "2002-10-19T00:10:29Z")
Whatever the outcome is, the good news is tha USA works together with other countries. Personally I hope that the inspectiopns will be successful. If there is given enough of back up, I can not see why not. If Saddam begins to play games, there is always the second alternative. But to just plainly send troops there, will only cause more wars: - NK has made nukes. “Forgiven now”, but next time…? - Pakistan has helped NK: [http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021018/80/dc2gq.html](http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021018/80/dc2gq.html) > [@](#): > > The United States believes Pakistan helped North Korea develop a nuclear weapons program and the White House has urged North Korea’s trading partners not to help it build such weapons. War with NK? Is it a country of evil? Of course it is. Punish Pakistan, the ally of today? > [@](#): > > U.S. officials on Thursday said they believed Russia and China had helped the Communist government develop the program and they would urge both to stop the cooperation and condemn the violation of international accords. China & Russia. War? Axis of evil. etc. etc. Punishments? War next time??? Pakistan and India was testing missiles a week ago. Missiles that can carry nukes! The Pakistanian missiles comes from NK, according to the news. Where do the Indian ones come from? Does anyone know? I just want to say that there is about 20 - 30 “evil dictators/governments” etc. in this world. **Constantly.** Been since WWII. **The world has to work together, to minimize their power.** The question if USA “has backed down on this or that”, I do not see like something negative for USA. It was a wise decision and good for the whole world. The solution of USA does not take away any pressure from Saddam and Baath, quite the contrary. We will soon see what follows. On the other hand (Reuters): [http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021018/80/dc13y.html](http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021018/80/dc13y.html) > [@](#): > > The U.S. Defence Department is looking into ways of juggling its resources between regions if called upon to fight and win two major wars simultaneously, according to a top Pentagon official. > \ > A year ago, President George W. Bush scrapped an old Cold War construct under which the armed forces were supposed to be able to wage two separate major wars at once. > > Under Bush’s doctrine, the forces are being sized and equipped for “decisively defeating” only one foe at a time. The change was spelled out in a strategy document called the Quadrennial Defence Review sent to Congress October l, 2001. Go and figure. Anyhow - all this has come to our knowledge within a week. Think what all has happened during the 5 last years and what all can happen within the 5 next years? It is time that the world begins to work together against the race of “who will have the best missiles”. The policy: who is our friend today, who will be tomorrow…, “Who’s next in line”, is doomed to give us new shocks one day.