Is Chirac to be believed?

Sofia wrote:

If the UN proved to be more useful and decisive than they have, I would be glad they existed. Their 'disagreement' re: Iraq wasn't the deciding factor for most people. It was just more more piece of evidence that the UN talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk... The UN had already established a do-nothing reputation with a lot of people. Bush may have coined the term 'glorified debating society', but that has long defined the UN for some.

Sofia,

The UN acted decisively. It dicisively denied the US attempt to slip an unprovoked invasion past them.

When you deride their "decisiveness" you simply are stating that their opinion differed from ours and from your opinion about what "decisive" means.

I think the UN was very decisive this year. You don;t. Maybe it's because you wanted the UN to sanction an invasion and I didn't?

McGentrix wrote:

I don't care how the world sees us, as long as it agrees with us. If they don't, then they are wrong.

Are those who are part of "us" also wrong when they disagree with you?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Craven--
I disagree with your statement...

If the UN proved to be more useful and decisive than they have, I would be glad they existed. Their 'disagreement' re: Iraq [..] was just more more piece of evidence that the UN talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk...

You mean that? If the UN would prove to be more decisive, you'd be glad they existed? Even if it proved to be decisive at the times that it opposed the US point of view as well?

In the question of Iraq, France (and perhaps Russia, too) would have vetoed the use of war as a means to redress Iraq's violation of UN resolutions. That made it, in your view, ineffective - a "do-nothing" club - which justified the US war.

What if the other UN SC members proposed a war the US disagreed with, and the US would have been the only country to veto such a war, would respecting America's veto make it a "do-nothing club"? Would you like it to be "decisive", and authorise the war anyway?

I have this creeping suspicion, but I would be glad to see the opposite, that you (and many others of similar convictions) would only like the UN to be "decisive" when it comes to enforcing the solutions America is proposing, and would object to such decisiveness if not France, but the US were trying to issue an "obstacle" veto.

That would prove Craven's point about the dishonesty of the argument. Either one wants the UN to be more than a "paper tiger" that lets that sneaky Chirac stand in the way of effective action with his veto - but then one would have to accept that it could authorize equally effective action against a US veto. Or one doesnt want the UN to be more of a real tiger, in which case one should be honest and just say that what Chirac did wrong was not, "being an obstacle in the UN", but "being an obstacle to US interests and policies".

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

USSR 120 vetoes (102 of which before 1962 - and 51 of those on applications of membership)
USA 83 vetoes (all after 1962 - 20 of which on Israel/Occupied Arab Territories)
UK 38
France 21
China 12
Russian Federation 2

It seems 1962 was the turning point here.

Before 1962:
USSR 102 vetoes, UK 8, France 6, China 3, USA 0.

After 1962:
USA 83 vetoes, UK 30, USSR 18, France 15, China 9, Russian Federation 2.

So for the period after 1962 the reference was right: more vetoes issued by the USA than by the other permanent members of the SC together - one quarter of which about Israel.

0 Replies

Quote:

The UN acted decisively. It dicisively denied the US attempt to slip an unprovoked invasion past them.

No, France acted dicisively. Had the UN acted dicisively, it would have been a 14-1 vote against the war.

Quote:

Are those who are part of "us" also wrong when they disagree with you?

Only if they are in the majority. :wink:

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
The UN acted decisively. It dicisively denied the US attempt to slip an unprovoked invasion past them.

No, France acted dicisively. Had the UN acted dicisively, it would have been a 14-1 vote against the war.

But they never got the chance to vote on that, because the US/UK withdrew its resolution. And it withdrew its resolution precisely because it became clear that the vote result would indeed look suspiciously like what you suggest - well, 13:2, perhaps. (Or if not 13 votes against, at least 13 votes against or abstentions).

Not just France, Germany, Russia and China had expressed their disagreement, even a coalition of the small ones - what was it, Mexico, Chile, Guinea, Indonesia, Pakistan, one more I think, had come up with an alternative proposal because they wouldnt be able to support the American/British one.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

No, France acted dicisively. Had the UN acted dicisively, it would have been a 14-1 vote against the war.

This is not true.

Eventually we will get around to my point. The UN is a sum. It's is not the whole. France's actions within the framework of the UN IS the UN. The US actions within the framework of the UN IS the UN.

The UN authorized Gulf 1. Many of the anti-UN crowd seem to think it was a US action.

0 Replies

Had France not said they would Veto it, it would have come to a vote and we had a majority of the UNSC on our side. That much was known. I remember diplomats going around the world and people bitching about the fact that we were paying for their votes.

Had France abstained, the resolution would have passed.

0 Replies

The majority of the UNSC said they would not veto ANY resolution but the one the US was about to propose would not have been passed even had France abstained. It needed modifications to pass and the US AND some other SC nations were willing to use France as the scapegoat.

Russia was playing both sides, as long as France was so steady they didn't need to be.

Have you considered that had France not guaranteed that the opinion of the majority of teh world would be respected in the SC that someone else might have?

0 Replies

If the UN is decisive, why did Saddam skate for 12 years after the Gulf War and before this last one? And, why didn't the UN stand behind 1441?

And, what did the UN contribute to the first Gulf War?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

If the UN is decisive, why did Saddam skate for 12 years after the Gulf War and before this last one?

I think what the world did for those 12 years was correct and what you wanted (which is what happened) to have been wrong.

So it's easy to say the world was indecisive, I disagree, they simply did differently than you would have done.

Deciding not to agree with you is not indecisiveness.

Quote:

And, what did the UN contribute to the first Gulf War?

Huh? The UN is a group of nations, those nations funded the war and many of their people fought and died in it. The UN gave the war the sanction of justice.

The US contribution is significant, until you consider the US capabilities.

We made money off of that war. That money came from somewhere.

That somehwere was from nation states.

Those nations make up the UN.

Every single person who died in that war was part of the UN.

BTW, when was the last time you saw a judge catch any criminals? Irrelevant bunch huh?

Think of it this way. The UN is a meeting, in the meeting things are discussed. After the meeting the members go out and act.

So yes, the meeting didn't pick up and attack Iraq.

But the meeting produced the coalition of members who did.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Well, as a citizen of the US, and not the world, I look at the UN through the eyes of an American.

We are right. We are the good guys. We are a super power in the world.

I don't care how the world sees us, as long as it agrees with us. If they don't, then they are wrong.

LOL! Well, at least you're being very honest. Explains a lot of your posts <winks>.

Seriously though, if thats honestly how you feel, its got to do with your convictions, its not simply because you're "a citizen of the US". I'm a citizen of the Netherlands, and I surely dont believe we are necessarily always the good guys, or that should the world disagree with us, its them being wrong. Sometimes we are. (Really. It happens. Only on a rare occasion, of course).

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

If the UN is decisive, why did Saddam skate for 12 years after the Gulf War and before this last one? And, why didn't the UN stand behind 1441?

You're skirting the issue, Sofia. You blame the UN for being "indecisive" when it comes to the line of action the US would like it to take - but would you actually want it to be more "decisive", in general? If not, your reproach would be rather insincere - hence both Craven's and my question:

nimh wrote:

If the UN would prove to be more decisive, you'd be glad they existed? Even if it proved to be decisive at the times that it opposed the US point of view as well?

In the question of Iraq, France (and perhaps Russia, too) would have vetoed the use of war as a means to redress Iraq's violation of UN resolutions. That made it, in your view, ineffective - a "do-nothing" club - which justified the US war.

What if the other UN SC members proposed a war the US disagreed with, and the US would have been the only country to veto such a war, would respecting America's veto make it a "do-nothing club"? Would you like it to be "decisive", and authorise the war anyway?

I have this creeping suspicion, but I would be glad to see the opposite, that you (and many others of similar convictions) would only like the UN to be "decisive" when it comes to enforcing the solutions America is proposing, and would object to such decisiveness if not France, but the US were trying to issue an "obstacle" veto.

That would prove Craven's point about the dishonesty of the argument. Either one wants the UN to be more than a "paper tiger" that lets that sneaky Chirac stand in the way of effective action with his veto - but then one would have to accept that it could authorize equally effective action against a US veto. Or one doesnt want the UN to be more of a real tiger, in which case one should be honest and just say that what Chirac did wrong was not, "being an obstacle in the UN", but "being an obstacle to US interests and policies".

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Had France not said they would Veto it, it would have come to a vote and we had a majority of the UNSC on our side. That much was known. [..]

Had France abstained, the resolution would have passed.

NOT! That is one of the bluntest revisions of history I've yet seen here.

Germany had declared it would not support the US/UK resolution, Russia had said it did not support it - might have been convinced to abstain rather than vote against, at best - same for China. Syria opposed it as well, obviously.

As Newsmax (a source you'll trust) wrote: "The draft resolution would have authorized war if Saddam did not disarm by March 17. It required nine votes in the Security Council to be approved but had only the support of the United States, Spain, Britain and Bulgaria."

That meant that the US would have had to garner the votes of five of the six remaining SC members - Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan. The spokesman of Pakistan's ruling party had already made it clear on 11 March that the country would abstain, with its Prime Minister appealing for Baghdad to be given more time to disarm ("We do not want to see the destruction of the Iraqi people, the destruction of the country"). And as I already reminded you in the post just above, several of just those countries allied into an "axis of the small" to present a last-minute compromise alternative to the US/UK resolution.

Their proposal involved a delay of authorising military intervention - just a delay shorter than what "Old Europe" was suggesting - making it clear they would not be able to accept the US/UK proposal. Their proposal's rejection of a pre-determined ultimatum, that would automatically trigger war if Saddam failed to comply with the disarmament demands, also made that clear. (See for info, for example, this AP story - or hell, do a Google on "angola chile guinea mexico pakistan iraq saddam compromise").

The Americans dismissed the proposal it out of hand, and then withdrew its plans to even field its own resolution, at all.

If they thought they couldve gotten at least a majority, even against a French veto, they wouldve gone there, because they wouldve at least gotten a 'moral' UN authorisation - it wouldve been their PR coup. As it was, they didnt stand a chance, and that was why they preferred not to even bother.

0 Replies

Nice write up nimh. Dunno why you bother sometimes (not an insult McG, I just admire his patience in research, it's much more than I'd do).

0 Replies

nimh,
You are mistaken, as to interpretation of my assertion that the UN is indecisive.

I know the difference between indecisive and not acting to my liking.

Had they come out during 1441 and said "We decide not to approve military action," my image of them may be disagreeable, but they would be decisive in my eyes. Instead, they alluded to grave consequences if the Resolution wasn't followed. The same wording pre-Gulf War. Yet, they continued to allow Saddam to impede and finagle, thwarting open inspections. Then, when we were willing to force the issue, they balked.

That, to me, is indecisive and wishy-washy.

0 Replies

Sofia,

That wording was wrangled over. The author of those words was the United States. They all fought to get rid of them. It was a compromise in which the opponents to the war did not interpret it as sanction for a US war and when the US did.

So who is to blame? The US fought and threatened for those words to be included. The US gave lipservice to the notion that they would seek a second resolution.

The US decided to screw 'em all and go it alone.

I have said before that the UN members were willing to go to war. It was never ruled out categorically.

That the US decided to interpret the "trigger clause" of their own making is not indicative of UN indecision.

The US foungt for several days with Europe to get that wording. Europe steadfastly denied the first trigger clause the US tried to sneak in.

The whole time everyone knew they were being played.

Bush was paying them only lipservice and asking them to be rubber stamps.

They rejected to the best of their ability the trigger clause. In short they rejecyed the war Bush wanted.

The inclusion of the threat was viewed as their compromise to the US, not their desire.

0 Replies

My point, exactly!

Had they possessed a set between them, they would have refused that wording. But, they approved it, and then slithered away from it.

Indecisive.

0 Replies

Sofia,

They didn't "slither away from it". They stood by it. The US interpreted it differently from all of them intentionally and was the one who "slithered".

What you suggest is that if we agree to "do something" it means I can do anything and if you don't agree you are slithering and indecisive.

In any case this talk of "slithering" is foolish. I know your feelings about the UN. No point in playing the game. Characterizations of an entity billions of individuals is rarely helpful.

I avoid doing so, I don't call the US a "buly" and such but if you want to do it to the UN go ahead. I just shouldn't play along.

Ok, one last attampt:

The US put it to them this way: "we will do it anyway so just stamp it."

They tried to reach a compromise. Everyone felt that they were getting to the same page.

The US got impatient as Saddam seemed more willing to bend over than they expected. The US did what they said they would do all along.

France is no friend of Iraq (despite Timber's repeated suggestion). What they did not want to happen was to sanction an unprovoked agression they did not agree with.

While it looked like we would deal with them they tried to reach a compromise.

If they had rejected us out of hand you would probably be saying that they were not willing to cooperate and compromise right now.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Nice write up nimh. Dunno why you bother sometimes (not an insult McG, I just admire his patience in research, it's much more than I'd do).

I even edited it to add extra info, an' all ;-).

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I know the difference between indecisive and not acting to my liking.

Had they come out during 1441 and said "We decide not to approve military action," my image of them may be disagreeable, but they would be decisive in my eyes.

Yet that was exactly what a clear majority of the SC said during the 'moment of decision' of Feb-Mar 2003. So I guess you should give them credit for that, at least.

The US said - the resolution implies grave consequences in case of non-compliance - we believe there is no hope for Iraqi compliance and we suggest war without delay as the appropriate "grave consequence".

A clear majority of fellow SC members said that the last five months had actually shown an increase of compliance, and therefore a chance for an alternative resolution - and that immediate warfare was not the appropriate "grave consequence". And they would have made their opinion clear when voting out the proposed US/UK resolution.

Straight-forward enough, isnt it? Nothing much wishy-washy in that. Just a plain, clear-cut disagreement.

Now if you plead for the UN to be more than a paper tiger - for it to be an institution whose decisions are adhered to - that adhering bit would go for the US, too.

Remember there is a counter-example here: Israel. Yes, I know Israel's been the brunt of UN resolutions of a different clause than the ones that concerned Iraq (partly, I'm sure, because the US has vetoed any higher-clause resolutions on the matter). But the parallel here is that in the case of Israel, the US is stopping the UN from taking the more "decisive" action that other SC members would prefer. Does your desire for the UN to be more than a paper tiger extend to objecting, when it's the US that's safeguarding the UN's "do-nothing reputation", as well?

Now, to avoid confusion, I'm all for everyone wanting the UN to be more than a paper tiger. The more teeth the better, at this moment, is my opinion. But (like Craven I guess), I'm not so fond of the use of "debating club", "do-nothing", "paper tiger" kind of rhetoric when the designation of the UN as "irrelevant" is only meant as an excuse to brush aside its very explicit (or "decisively" expressed) disagreement, every time it's standing in the way of the US and the actions it wants to take. (Actions it wants to undertake out of national interest, at that).

0 Replies

Is Chirac to be believed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know