What if the US loses the UN vote?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Trying to act as a counterweight to the US sounds to me like an expensive proposition.

Expensive and megalomaniac. It seems to be an ambition fitting my president

Why would the US compromise very much with France?

It would make things much easier if the US just had the UN approval next week. It would also relieve much military costs for the US in the peacekeeping operations after the war. Lastly, it would give more legitimacy to the attack in the world public opinions, and more importantly the US public opinion.
I guess Bush had some reasons to go to the UN.

[DanS]

Spiffor: I also added the comment...

Why would the US compromise very much with France?

[Spiffor]

DanS : seen this, edited that

[DuncanK]

Spiffor,

I think Bush would actually rather see Chirac veto. I don't think Bush will give him anything. I could be wrong though.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I think France is actively looking for support as well. Maybe even more than the US (I wonder what we gave to Russia for it to back our position ?).
To the US, this whole UN charade has been a painful formality, which ended up badly. To France, it is central in the prestige of the French diplomacy, as the only counterweight against the US.

But the most probable outcome will be :

- a watered down resolution in the words, which practically allows the US to attack, but gives enough rhetorics for Chirac to save the face.
- Calm and backstagey negociations between the US, France and Russia, so that nobody vetoes the whole deal, and everyone finds an acceptable win in the situation.
- Germany makes an ass of itself by voting against the war alone (China will abstain)
- Iraqis get slaughtered as planned

Spiffor: I think that this is the probable outcome as well. I do think it possible that you will also see a Russian abstinsion. France will have no option but to vote yes if they are able to obtain face saving language. The trade off will probably be post-Saddam Iraq honoring development contracts for the southern oil fields.

[DanS]

It would make things much easier if the US just had the UN approval next week. It would also relieve much military costs for the US in the peacekeeping operations after the war. Lastly, it would give more legitimacy to the attack in the world public opinions, and more importantly the US public opinion.

Why would French approval matter for the ultimate outcome at the UN? Looks to me like Bush could just dare France to veto the positive vote.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Why would French approval matter for the ultimate outcome at the UN? Looks to me like Bush could just dare France to veto the positive vote.

We'll see, but I doubt the Bushies will risk that much to stroke their ego. A veto in the UN would delight almost every Frenchman, so it isn't risky on the internal level either. Chirac is quite unpredictable when provoked these days, since he is just discovering he has balls.

I really think there are backstage negociations occuring right now. I didn't see any official diplomatic barking across the pond in quite some time.

[DanS]

A veto in the UN would delight almost every Frenchman

It would ultimately harm France's interests, however.

[DuncanK]

Spiffor,

I think it would be more than just a stroke to Bush's ego if France was made to look like an outsider here. It would make France look like the loser out of it. Even if France doesn't veto they still look bad, but atleast they are able to look out for their interests. At least they would still look sucessfull at sending a message, even if they couldn't stop the US from attacking.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DanS
A veto in the UN would delight almost every Frenchman

It would ultimately harm France's interests, however.

This is very true. France is not economically powerful enough to challenge US positions around the world. Not to mention the fact that the US has defacto control over most international loans from the IMF.

In order for France to position itself as a counterweight it must gain full control over a strengthened EU. (EU policy must become French policy). This is highly unlikely that Chirac will be able to pull this off.

Logic would then suggest that Chirac must compromise or end up with less international leverage than he currently have (this is not to say that standing firm would not be of great value to the domestic population, but he does not need to increase support there).

The best play for France is to get a face saving resolution where they can say that their position was upheld and they stood up to US even as tanks roll into Iraq.

[Lancer]

I say we throw the UN out and then take out Saddam. We waste our time, there's nobody to stop us and as long as we keep doing the right thing, ie taking out the bad guys, the democracies of the world can either join the posse or shut the hell up and I don't care which.

[DanS]

The best play for France is to get a face saving resolution where they can say that their position was upheld and they stood up to US even as tanks roll into Iraq.

Better for the US not to facilitate France saving face on the issue.

[DuncanK]

The US must appear to be trying to get the resolution to pass, but would probably rather make it look like the French failed at standing against them. If they can, then the French might be even less successfull in the future at standing against them, because other nations would not expect the French to be successfull.

[Urban Ranger]

The Security Council won't pass a new resolution on this. The US will need 9 votes for it, something it will not be able to achieve. Even if Russia + France + the PRC is only half as effective as the US + the UK, they still won't be able to swing it. Plus, France will table a counter resolution if and when the US presses for an attack.

So the only thing remains to be seen is whether the US will go it alone with some help from the Brits and the Aussies. But only a genius such as W. will put himself in a nightmare like this.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The Security Council won't pass a new resolution on this. The US will need 9 votes for it, something it will not be able to achieve. Even if Russia + France + the PRC is only half as effective as the US + the UK, they still won't be able to swing it. Plus, France will table a counter resolution if and when the US presses for an attack.

So the only thing remains to be seen is whether the US will go it alone with some help from the Brits and the Aussies. But only a genius such as W. will put himself in a nightmare like this.

UR: There was a good article today in USA TODAY about how the US can apply pressure to each member. It gives rational on PRC abstaining and Russia getting on board. It even presents a fairly reasonable case for France voting for a resolution that allows them to save face.

This is appearing more and more like the most probable scenario.

It appears that the "industrialized" world is not yet ready to split, but the groundwork has clearly been laid out.