France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Enforcement of the NPT would be solely the job of the UN Security Council: there is nothing in the treaty, just as there is nothing within the UN charter, that give s a single state, without the full consent of the SecCouncil, the ability to "enforce" the treaty. And if any single state ever begun to try to do such a thing, the offender could simply decide (as N.Korea has done, and did in 1993) to begin the procedure to leave the treaty, which any state can do if they so whish. As for the reasons to "enforce" the NPT: I am ambivalent. In 'theory' all violators should face consequences for their actions. These consequences though don't mean war. As I said before, any state can at any time drop the NPT, due to the primacy of state's sovereignty on the world stage, and if it is assumed that a state can drop out, it hardly seems likely that one of the possible consequences for breaking it is war. The most obvious penalty is an end of nuclear cooperation with such states, since the deal in the NPT is that small states won't make nukes, and the Nuclear powers will give them help in the civilian uses of nuclear power.

So, in theory Ned, all violations of the NPT should be addressed, but the NPT is a somewhat hollow treaty. It is a promise by the have's to the have not's: we promise never to use nukes against you, and help you build nuclear power plants, as long as you never try to make nukes. It's enforcement depends primarily on the good-will of the "have not's". As long as they think the 'have's' have kept their word, they will follow. If the believe the "have's" have broken their part of the bargain, they are free to drop it. So, a violation of the NPT is not, by itself, a possible causus belli.

GePap, the goal of the Non-proliferation Treaty is the elimination of nuclear weapons from this planet. How can we ever achieve this, reliably, if signatory nations are "free" to simply drop out at any time?

I understand that the treaty does have provisions permitting a state to drop out. We have learned this recently in the case of North Korea, who has given the U.N. notice that is it is withdrawing from the treaty. Assuming that the North Koreans have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, should the United Nations simply wash it's hands of North Korea? Should we just ignore, other than by denying them nuclear expertise, their acquisition of nuclear weapons because they have a right to them as a sovereign nation?

I think that is your argument.

This argument is very similar to the argument propounded by the Southern states when they succeeded from the Union.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Maroule
so why all the fuss?

Exactly, the fuss is France shouldn't be taking bribes.

I bet it would be easier to get agreement here on invading France than Iraq.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't think the US will ever leave the United Nations, but I can envisage a day where the US no longer goes to the UN with any issues of real importance.

No you don't get out of the U.N.. Remember what happened to the Soviets the one time the left in protest? The U.S. slipped in a resolution authorizing force to combat the North Korean invasion of the south.

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.

So if the U.S. wants to put the U.N. in cold storage they can just by jerking the purse strings.

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

[GePap]

Originally posted by GP


I don't think that is true. Interpretations of the previous resolution have been varied. But Roland claims that it says that if there is clear evidence of misbehavior the SC still decides what to do after they see that.

GP:

All resolution 1441 states is that if Iraq is found to be in material breach, the issue returns to the SC for discussion. A second resolution being necessary for action is not explicitly called for, so in that sense, Washington could go to war with Iraq after bringing the issue up for discussion in the Council, but without ever calling for a new vote. I can see why the US might want to call a second vote, if it felt it could get it passed, and thus crossing all its "t"'s and dotting all i's "i"'s int he process. I can also see why the US might want to push a vote even if it thoght it would loose: they could claim that they did try, but as the "jingo boys" here have already stated: they can blmae no new resolution on "french intransigence", or "European intransigence" as well. Though if they not only failed to get all five veto members, but failed to get the required non-permanent support a well, it would really be a diplomatic black eye for Bush.

[Dinner]

BTW speaking of the U.N. did you folks see how they confirmed Libya as chairman of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights? Yes, the Africans voted the U.S. out of the position because they felt Gadafi's government was a better example of Freedom, Democracy, and respect for Human Rights.

That my friends speaks volumes about how irreliviant the opinions of people at the U.N. are.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, the goal of the Non-proliferation Treaty is the elimination of nuclear weapons from this planet. How can we ever achieve this, reliably, if signatory nations are "free" to simply drop out at any time?

I understand that the treaty does have provisions permitting a state to drop out. We have learned this recently in the case of North Korea, who has given the U.N. notice that is it is withdrawing from the treaty. Assuming that the North Koreans have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, should the United Nations simply wash it's hands of North Korea? Should we just ignore, other than by denying them nuclear expertise, their acquisition of nuclear weapons because they have a right to them as a sovereign nation?

I think that is your argument.

This argument is very similar to the argument propounded by the Southern states when they succeeded from the Union.

Ned:

The concept of State Sovereingty trumps almost all other issues in the UN system. So, while getting rid of Nukes is a nice dream, if it can only happen at the cost fo states having the "right" to chose their own agendas, 99% of states would rather say no. For example, Pakistan, Israel, and India never signed on to the NPT. They have nukes, and various people may complain, but it is within their rights as soverign nations to refuse to sign on the the NPT as long as they think it is not in their interests: so within the NPT we have clauses stating that if in the future any state feels it is no longer in their interest to stay in the treaty, they can leave (same with the ABM treaty the US just left). The five nuclear powers stated in the treaty they wopuld move towards nuclear disarmament: none has. For all the talk of significant cuts in arsenals, the US and Russia still plan to have thousands of nuclear warheads: the Chinese are on the verge of increasing their arsenal, or at least, making it more global in reach. There is not move to get rid of nukes in the world today. And thus, the NPT remain a voluntary measure: much like going to church. You may feel better going, but you can skip it at any time you wish.

And no, i do not think this pertains to Seccesionist arguments: the NPT exists in a realm without a central authority; states within the US are not fully sovereign as are States in the world.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ned
Assuming that the North Koreans have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, should the United Nations simply wash it's hands of North Korea? Should we just ignore, other than by denying them nuclear expertise, their acquisition of nuclear weapons because they have a right to them as a sovereign nation?

Yes, of course. It´s none of your business.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
BTW speaking of the U.N. did you folks see how they confirmed Libya as chairman of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights? Yes, the Africans voted the U.S. out of the position because they felt Gadafi's government was a better example of Freedom, Democracy, and respect for Human Rights.

That my friends speaks volumes about how irreliviant the opinions of people at the U.N. are.

If it is so irrelevant, perhaps you can find another thread to inhabit right now (ie. I think such statements add nothing to a discussion, just take up space between posts with issues, making it harder to find those among the dross).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Yes, of course. It´s none of your business.

We will suspend food shipments immediately.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That my friends speaks volumes about how irreliviant the opinions of people at the U.N. are.

No, it's an example of the majority of African states wanting to pull the teeth out of UN human rights.

Since when has any African country gave a damn about Human rights. Human rights are just a damn nuisance
to most African governments.

Libya will do the job just the way they like it.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ozz
I bet it would be easier to get agreement here on invading France than Iraq.

How about a world-wide agreement to invade the US?

I just love the idea behind the Fortress America Game.

[SlowwHand]

Oerdin, you many find your self surprised about the ability to leave the U.N.
Tribune, take your toys and put them away.

[Ned]

GePap and Comrade Tribune, Do you or do you not support the elimination of nuclear weapons (and other weapons of mass destruction) from this planet?

[Dinner]

Is it fair for the big five to possess nuclear weapons yet prosue a policy which denies them to other states? No. Is it in our interests to do so? Most asuredly yes. Do we possess the financial, political, & military power to force other states into realizing it's in their interests not to build nuclear weapons? 9 times out of 10 yes but with North Korea we will see.

In the end it comes down to how much a government is willing to sacrifice in order to get those nukes. Personally, I'd first make an example out of Iraq just to make the North Koreas & Irans of the world get a little nervious then I'd carrot & stick them into giving up their nukes. There is nothing like a little Judus gold to oil the wheel.