Will the French and/or Russians veto?

[GePap]

And what has France done to "prove" this? Certainly the French wish to maintain or imporve their situation in the world (so does every single state including the US), but I do believe it when they French state that they think the US is going to destabilize the region without thinking very hard about the aftermath.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
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.

You are mostly right. The French extreme position comes from the willingness to become #1 in the anti-war fashion, and to prove who's the boss with Germany in the EU (well, it backlashed). The imperialistic problems over oil could have been negociated if France and US didn't go on each other's nerves.

However, at the beginning, France and the US didn't oppose that strongly. France's position, at its core, has remained consistent from last Summer : a war must be avoided as long as all peaceful attempts have not been exhausted. It was the French position when 1441 was written, and it remains the same. France never rejected the use of force on principle.
The motivations from the French position 6 months ago remain approximately the same : an American war would destabilize the region, help terrorists to get support (i.e money and manpower), and will enbitter the Clash of Civilizations, which we absolutely want to avoid (if only because the biggest minority in France is Arabic).

Now, Chirac and de Villepin took the opportunity, and milked as many benefits as they could by opposing the US. It could have been a good idea to oppose the US in the backstage, to prevent the chickenhawks from doing too much ruckus, but it would have brought much less international prestige to France in the past months, and it would have brought much, much less domestic and international support to Chirac.

[Az]

And what has France done to "prove" this? Certainly the French wish to maintain or imporve their situation in the world (so does every single state including the US), but I do believe it when they French state that they think the US is going to destabilize the region without thinking very hard about the aftermath.

I guess this is the heart of the dispute between rational thinkers on both sides.

I, personally, don't know whether I support the war or not, since I don't know what the US plans to do next, what kind of government will follow the war.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
And what has France done to "prove" this? Certainly the French wish to maintain or imporve their situation in the world (so does every single state including the US), but I do believe it when they French state that they think the US is going to destabilize the region without thinking very hard about the aftermath.

It depends on how you define proof. I believe that the French intransigence against setting any kind of "drop dead" deadline is in direct contrast to their vote on 1441. At that time, the French Abassador stated that another resolution would be needed in the case of Iraqi non compliance. Blix has stated repeatedly that Iraq is not complying fully. Blix has also stated that Compliance is getting better. Threat of military pressure worked. If France was seriously interested in peacefully disarming Iraq, they would propose a time table for the disarmament (perhaps the set of benchmarks proposed by the English) and determine Iraqi seriousness to disarm. At some point they would have to back up 1441. They are unwilling to do this because this could be seen as caving in to American desires. The logical conclusion is that it has become about power and not Iraq.

[GePap]

States are free to disagree about the meaning of 1441. An on the issue of other resolutions: the current one sets a one week deadline, and as it stands, oit doesn;t even state what real disarmament in that timeframe means..for example, lets say on March 15 Iraq brings out 20,000 pages of documents it says give all the proof necessary to show it had disamrned, and gives in alist of 200 names of people to interview, maps, so forth and so on. Could such info be annalyzed in 2 days.. to make sure it is correct and valid and not some ruse to reset the clock? Could you then go cheak up on every place to test the soil.to prove or disprove the claims?

A march 17 deadline is absurd, if you still think peaceful disarmament is possible. Now, for the US and UK, since they expect to go to war, this is fine and dandy. What about everyone else?

[PLATO]

Spiffor, Your analysis is as always logical and insightful. Here is where I take exception. The French position on destabilization and increased terrorism is, in my opinion, based upon an assumption of a failed Iraqi occupation not on the war itself. The US position is based on a successful Iraqi occupation.

If these assumptions are correct then France is correct in its position to the point of imminent military action. At that point they should begin supporting what needs to be done to make sure that an occupation is sucessful. The French have effectively removed the UN as a legitimate partner in the reconstruction once they actually use their veto. If they come to the proverbial 11th hour and abstain then I will believe that this is about the items you mentioned. If they press forward with their veto, then I maintain that their primary concern is French power and not regional stability.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Agathon, Interesting article. definately aluding to a wag the dog scenario. I do not think it makes an effective case, however.

That's why I thought it was rubbish.

[Agathon]

From this I think we can agree that the French are clearly superior players when it comes to diplomacy. They have managed to paint themselves as the reasonable party and have managed to humiliate both the US and Britain who seem unable to recapture the moral high ground.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
States are free to disagree about the meaning of 1441. An on the issue of other resolutions: the current one sets a one week deadline, and as it stands, oit doesn;t even state what real disarmament in that timeframe means..for example, lets say on March 15 Iraq brings out 20,000 pages of documents it says give all the proof necessary to show it had disamrned, and gives in alist of 200 names of people to interview, maps, so forth and so on. Could such info be annalyzed in 2 days.. to make sure it is correct and valid and not some ruse to reset the clock? Could you then go cheak up on every place to test the soil.to prove or disprove the claims?

A march 17 deadline is absurd, if you still think peaceful disarmament is possible. Now, for the US and UK, since they expect to go to war, this is fine and dandy. What about everyone else?

GePap: If we were starting at "Time zero" right now then a March 17 deadline would be absurd. 1441 has been in effect for months. At what point do you draw the line? In order to gain French support, I would not be against more time (as long as a definate time limit was set). The US position is that after months of documented non-compliance, why wait?

[The Vagabond]

Actually, if you look at it from another angle, France and Germany's opposition may be a healthy thing for the Western organism as a whole, assuming that this organism won't fall apart as a result (and it won't). Indeed, if the West were united in attacking Iraq, it would cause a horrid impression upon the rest of the world and the public in the Western countries themselves. France and Germany's stance helps to soften the perception and release some steam.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
The French have effectively removed the UN as a legitimate partner in the reconstruction once they actually use their veto.

Why? I don't see any contradiction between the French veto and the UN being a legitimate partner in the post-war reconstruction. The fact that the UN doesn't approve the war doesn't mean that the UN (and France for that matter) can't subsequently participate in the post-war activities.

[Spiffor]

Plato :
I will disagree with you on one point. This war isn't solely about Iraq, but can have ramfications on the whole Arabic world, if it gets percieved as a US/western agression against the Muslims. Given the poor pro-war PR, such ramifications can happen.

Originally posted by PLATO1003
If [the French] press forward with their veto, then I maintain that their primary concern is French power and not regional stability.

This is, IMO, completely true. Chirac will most probably veto because of everything he has said until now, including in a very official occurence today in front of the French people.
France's motivations have shifted : they were at the beginning the betterment of the resolution of the crisis, but they now are France's power and Chirac's support, because Chirac has decided to milk the crisis in his favour, rather than trying to effectively minimize the rampage the chickenhawks are out to do.
Sure, France's noble motivations are the mantra of our diplomats even now, but I am pretty sure these diplomats are as sincere as Bush's when he pretends the war is about liberating the Iraqi people : pure PR.
In short : France's motivations have become ugly now, but haven't been ugly at the beginning.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Spiffor
France's motivations have shifted : they were at the beginning the betterment of the resolution of the crisis, but they now are France's power and Chirac's support, because Chirac has decided to milk the crisis in his favour, rather than trying to effectively minimize the rampage the chickenhawks are out to do.

But what can France actually do in order to effectively minimize the rampage?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Agathon
From this I think we can agree that the French are clearly superior players when it comes to diplomacy. They have managed to paint themselves as the reasonable party and have managed to humiliate both the US and Britain who seem unable to recapture the moral high ground.

Agathon: The French have always been superior diplomatic players. Unfortunately they have many times been unable to translate a diplomatic victory into tangible results.

They are, in fact, taking a great risk right now. If they are unsuccesful in stopping war and incorrect about the consequences then I maintain that they will suffer a major diplomatic defeat.

The consequences of losing this struggle are much greater for them than for the US.

[Agathon]

They've already won a major diplomatic victory. They have put the United States in a much weaker position when it inevitably comes to the SC to beg for help in the reconstruction of Iraq.

What can the US do to the French anyway? Nothing of substance.