Will the French and/or Russians veto?

[Spiffor]

Chirac held an official 30 minutes interview on both major channels today, which was exclusively about the war in Iraq (except for a 2 minutes blurb about domestic policies).

He explained that a permanent member of the UNSC always vetoes when it votes no. And Chirac said he'll vote no personally, i.e veto. Sure, "Chirac is a known liar and cheat. I don't think we should trust him". But such an involvement one day before the vote, and in front of the whole French audience is enough of a hint.
There is an extremely strong domestic pressure on Chirac to veto : the whole political class is against the war, from the Communists to Le Pen, at the exception of a nearly insignificant politician (Alain Madelin). If Chirac chickens out tomorrow, he'd offer an impressive chance to the left of criticizing him.
This is not only party politics. The French public opinion is outstandingly against the war, considers the US is guilty of the current diplomatic crisis (81%), have a very poor opinion of Bush (82%), and mostly support a veto (69% for, 24% against ; all those figures have been displayed at French TV today).
Also, there is a pressure from other anti-war European countries, especially Germany. If France doesn't want to ruin its newly reborn marriage with Germany, it cannot back off at the very end.

It is extremely unlikely Chirac chickens out tomorrow. He'll very, very probably vote no.

[lightblue]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2838269.stm

France has joined Russia in declaring itself ready to veto a new UN resolution which gives Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein until 17 March to disarm.
French President Jacques Chirac said his country would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war.

Mr Chirac's comments echoed an earlier statement by the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, who said his country would vote against the draft resolution proposed by the US and the UK.

The stance by France and Russia - both veto-wielding members of the Security Council - is a severe blow to US aims of securing UN backing for quick military action against Iraq.

In a day of frantic diplomatic activity, President George W Bush has been telephoning foreign leaders in an attempt to garner support for the resolution.

The Security Council resumed consultations on Monday, but the new resolution is not expected to be put to the vote until Wednesday at the earliest.

Guees that puts the cat among the pigeons, though that might be the wrong metaphor to chose...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Just read it....may be on the money.....maybe not.....who wants to take the gamble that the gun's not loaded tho?

-=Vel=-

Fair enough. I didn't say that I agreed with the guy, but it's made me think harder about it.

[DanS]

the Saddam business is just the start of an extreme unilateralist policy which IMHO would be a disaster

The Saddam business has a wide coalition, even without UN approval. Hardly unilateral.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


The essence of his stance is not pro-war-at-all-costs. It is rather pro-US-at-all-costs. He is deeply convinced that that's in the ultimate national interest of Britain. And he might well be right.

He might be right if we were talking about what is really in the interests of the US, rather than the lunacy being promoted by Bush and co.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Agathon
Actually, if you're interested in why the French seem to be behaving so strangely take a look at this.

http://lincolnplawg.blogspot.com/

Agathon, this is the type situation that I have been arguing all along. The French Resistance is nothing more than a power play.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Agathon
He might be right if we were talking about what is really in the interests of the US, rather than the lunacy being promoted by Bush and co.

I like that: "what is really in the interests of the US".

[Dinner]

The French have said they'd be against any resolution that has an automatic trigger, Russia says they are against the resolution in its current form, and China said they oppose a resolution. Blair today started talking about ways to change the resolution so as to make it more paletable to the 3rd party countries and Bush said he's open to negotiated changes so here's my new prodiction.

France vetos no matter what changes are made because Chirac has personnally invested to much political capital in this to do anything else. China abstains so as not to unnecissarially upset the Americans, Russia may veto or may be convinced to abstain if the U.K./U.S. make a few changes to the resolution. Since the resolution is going to be vetoed the U.S./U.K. are going to make their new goal to try and get as close to the magic nine votes as possible.

They'll do this because that will provide them Bush & Blair with some measure of political cover when the go after Saddam despite French objections. We'll hear things like "we almost passed the resolution but the French vetoed it. I'm not going to let our foreign policy be held hostage by internal French politics".

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DanS
The Saddam business has a wide coalition, even without UN approval. Hardly unilateral.

This coalition-even-without-UN argument is repeated so often, but in essence it's bogus. After all, the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union also in a "coalition". IIRC, Italians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc. were all there.

Disclaimer: not that I am comparing the US to Nazi Germany, or against a unilateral US action in Iraq.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The French have said they'd be against any resolution that has an automatic trigger, Russia says they are against the resolution in its current form, and China said they oppose a resolution. Blair today started talking about ways to change the resolution so as to make it more paletable to the 3rd party countries and Bush said he's open to negotiated changes so here's my new prodiction.

France vetos no matter what changes are made because Chirac has personnally invested to much political capital in this to do anything else. China abstains so as not to unnecissarially upset the Americans, Russia may veto or may be convinced to abstain if the U.K./U.S. make a few changes to the resolution. Since the resolution is going to be vetoed the U.S./U.K. are going to make their new goal to try and get as close to the magic nine votes as possible.

They'll do this because that will provide them Bush & Blair with some measure of political cover when the go after Saddam despite French objections. We'll hear things like "we almost passed the resolution but the French vetoed it. I'm not going to let our foreign policy be held hostage by internal French politics".

This is a good analysis. I had originally thought that the French would lobby for some face saving changes to the resolution and eventually support it. It appears that Chirac is has generated such nationalistic support that the French would veto anything that was proposed at this point or look as if they were caving in to the Americans.

It does seem sad that France has lost what is really important here. (Eliminating a threat to the world.) It now seems to all be about French "stature" in the world.
Sad.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


Agathon, this is the type situation that I have been arguing all along. The French Resistance is nothing more than a power play.

Look - all of it is a power play. I don't dispute that. I just think one side's power play is less odious than the other's.

And to be fair both power plays in this situation have an efficient internal logic to them and some means of dealing with unexpected events - unlike the Toronto Maple Leafs' power play, for example.


BTW - here's one to add to the "lame article of the week" archive.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DCBB.htm

I can't understand this twit - I mean he attacks an extremely simple version of the "war for oil" argument that most people don't hold (I got my oil argument from a right wing hawk) and then offers his own analysis, that it is "internal crises" that are forcing Bush to act.

Isn't this a "wag the dog" argument?

[GePap]

The changes they have to make to even get 9 votes are: first, add a list of markers which would be the signs Iraq is disarming, and perhaps, extend the deadline: after all, since they are pushing back the voting date, if they vote on it on wensday, that give Iraq only 5 days after the resoltuion passes.

I do think Chirac has staked much politically (like Bush, who must go to war now). I do think that if the French veto, while the Us public will be satisfied, the British public won't be....

Also, on Vel's comment: There is not so much money to be made in Iraq..and the costs will outweight any "profit" for a long time, if we ever do make a "profit" out of it.

As for PLATO's point: perhaps the French think the real threat is the war, not Saddam....

[Sten Sture]

I am currently thinking that the French veto anything stance is making modifications to the resolution more likely. Push the date back to April 17th, include steps for compliance, appoint more inspectors, etc and then make the French veto with the only 'no' vote. Sounds vaguely plausable.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sten Sture
I am currently thinking that the French veto anything stance is making modifications to the resolution more likely. Push the date back to April 17th, include steps for compliance, appoint more inspectors, etc and then make the French veto with the only 'no' vote. Sounds vaguely plausable.

I think this would be a wise move by US/UK. I don't think it is going to happen. Both sides positions are to hardened now.

GePap: I really did try to give the French the benefit of the doubt. I think that the evidence is mounting day by day that it is not the war or Saddam that they fear. I am more convinced than ever that this is an attempt by France to reestablish itself as a world power. In this type of struggle, neither side will be able to blink.

[PLATO]

Agathon, Interesting article. definately aluding to a wag the dog scenario. I do not think it makes an effective case, however.