France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[GeneralTacticus]

Well, that *IS* the way you get ahead in international politics, after all...

[Adam Smith]

Couple of items from yesterday's Washington Post.

European officials have apparently acknowledged in private that Iraq does have hidden chemical and biological weapons

UN officials indicated that there has been at least one case where Iraq removed materials from an inspection site before UN inspectors arrived. US officials appear to take this as an indication of security leaks in the inspection process.

[Maroule]

interesting article, and Vinocur knows his stuff (he lived in paris for ages, I met him when I was a trainee in the IHT, nice guy BTW).

It's typical power play from a nation with limited means but a lot of experience. As an additional news, I can give you an interesting item : an unofficial rumour here is that several top french troops are preparing for a conflict in a desert zone (and repainting their tanks accordingly) while the French minister of defence is busy negotiating which part of the front the french troops would intervene.

[GePap]

So war by March.....

I wonder if TV coverage will be as widespread as in 1991. I can't see today's military puting on the same type of shows as last time: we got few nice bomb camera picks back from Afghanistan. At the same time, there's going to be a lot of cameras in Baghdad, and I think the Army will find it almost impossible to control video footage from that city. Would US networks show much of it? I am unsure.

Back on 'topic': Blix is unhappy about Saddam's 'cooperation'. No one mentioned what El Baradei said, but maybe he said nothing. I don't think this report will change anyones minds (Blix says he is unhappy, but he is training more inspectors, openning new offices), so the current tango cotinues.

While the inspections surely contain Saddam, they won't lead to disarmamment. What incentive does Saddam have? Avoiding war? Does anyone really think that's going to happen? From Saddam's point of view, there is no longer any incentive, positive, or negative, to disarm. The US is going to invade anyway, might as well have the stuff, maybe even use it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Maroule,

So whats your opinion about why the French are so opposed to ousting Hussein?

What I'm interested in here is what's the opinion on the 'street' in France. Is it just typical euro-leftist opposition to anything from Washington, or something else?

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap

While the inspections surely contain Saddam, they won't lead to disarmamment. What incentive does Saddam have? Avoiding war? Does anyone really think that's going to happen? From Saddam's point of view, there is no longer any incentive, positive, or negative, to disarm. The US is going to invade anyway, might as well have the stuff, maybe even use it.

GePap, I do not believe even France will call for inspections that have no end. The goal is disarmament.

I don't know what kind of resolution the UN could now issue to force Saddam into voluntary compliance. But, if inspections continue, it should be clear that Saddam must cooperated fully - the scientists and their families should be allowed to leave Iraq and the U2 overflights should be permitted. I cannot see how the inspections should be continued the way they are being conducted to date. The SC should make it clear what more is needed.

The French may be biding their time, though, 'til Bush's State of the Union speech tomorrow. But after that, I suspect they will move closer to the US position.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
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.

The UN member countries' contributions are based on GDP, IIRC, and an individual country's funding is capped at 22% of the total. The US is paying 22% of the total currently. Germany is paying 9.8%. Japan is paying 19.6%. Canada is paying 2.57%

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/reg-budget/large02.htm

[Dinner]

That's the general fund but it doesn't take into account peace keeping missions like Bosnia and Kosovo in which the U.S. is the biggest contributor. Thus the real amount is much higher then the nominal 22%.

[KrazyHorse]

Finally found a source.

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0597/ijpe/pj2peace.htm

The five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) are assessed at 20 percent above the basic scale. The United States is assessed the largest amount of any country -- 25 percent of the U.N. regular budget and 31 percent of U.N. peacekeeping costs. The U.S. Congress -- in legislation that took effect October 1, 1995 -- limited the U.S. payment to no more than 25 percent of peacekeeping costs; the amount of the U.S. assessment is currently under negotiation between the United States and the United Nations. The next highest contributors to U.N. peacekeeping are Japan (15.5 percent), Germany (9 percent), France (7.9 percent), the United Kingdom (6.6 percent), and the Russian Federation (5.5 percent). Most countries are assessed less than 0.1 percent of the costs.

As the US recently successfully negotiated a lowering of its contribution to the general fund, I'm assuming that their peacekeeping assessment was similarly reduced to something like 26.4%

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That's the general fund but it doesn't take into account peace keeping missions like Bosnia and Kosovo in which the U.S. is the biggest contributor. Thus the real amount is much higher then the nominal 22%.

Aha... well, what is the US share of the peacekeepers in Kosovo and Bosnia?