Announcement

**Dis** · March 10, 2003, 02:48

you guys are acting like the U.N. means anything to the U.S.'s desires

**Urban Ranger** · March 10, 2003, 03:00

Originally posted by Dissident
you guys are acting like the U.N. means anything to the U.S.'s desires

So true

**DanS** · March 10, 2003, 03:03

Am I the only one who thinks that the US is much less powerful in a unipolar world than with the UN? The power that the US has is severely overstated.

Good point. The power that the US has is vastly overrated and the US most often needs or wants to act multilaterally. But the best position for the US to be in is leading small and large coalitions to do certain tasks. The US can tailor its multilateralism and often the UN just gets in the way, if it has any impact.

For instance, for the Iraq operation, we have the US, Australia, New Europe, Kuwait, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and South Korea. This is a quite sufficient coalition. The UN didn't facilitate this coalition.

The War Against Terrorism has some 80 countries as part of the coalition. The UN didn't facilitate this coalition.

The coalition that will confront North Korea will be Japan, South Korea, Australia, and perhaps China and Russia. The UN hasn't facilitated this coalition so far.

Off the top of my head, the only vital US interests that are directly impacted by the UN is the resolution of the Cyprus issue and I guess the UN imprimateur in Korea. True, we do distribute food through the UN, but that's mostly not a vital interest. Maybe you can think of some here and there that I can't.

Compare to France, which is a third-tier power without the UN.

**Drogue** · March 10, 2003, 08:37

I don't think Russia or China will veto (IIRC the Times reported that China won't even vote against, but abstain

). I think the French would, but I don't think they'll have to. I don't think Britain and the US will get the 9 votes for the new resolution.

(I would post a link, but my Timesonline account has decided not to work on the school computers

)

**Drogue** · March 10, 2003, 08:41

Originally posted by Dissident
you guys are acting like the U.N. means anything to the U.S.'s desires

Does to the Uk though. I think the US will go it alone, I can't see Britain doing that. Blair would face so many resignations, I don't think he'll risk it.

**woke26** · March 10, 2003, 08:44

I'm a bit pessimistic and affraid that no country dares to stand up against the American rage. So i think no veto's

**Lancer** · March 10, 2003, 08:52

"the American rage" Kinda like that woke, YOU DL!!!

DL dance, yeah...

**Dis** · March 10, 2003, 14:35

I do think Blair will go at it alone.

**Paul Hanson** · March 10, 2003, 14:40

He'll be eaten alive by:

a) The British public
b) His party
c) The press

if he does. Not that I'm saying he won't do it, but he'll have hell to pay if he does.

**Jeltz** · March 10, 2003, 15:08

In case you didn't already know

Russia has confirmed plans for veto on Iraq:
BBC news

**Agathon** · March 10, 2003, 15:18

Originally posted by DanS
Am I the only one who thinks that the US is much less powerful in a unipolar world than with the UN? The power that the US has is severely overstated.

Good point. The power that the US has is vastly overrated and the US most often needs or wants to act multilaterally. But the best position for the US to be in is leading small and large coalitions to do certain tasks. The US can tailor its multilateralism and often the UN just gets in the way, if it has any impact.

For instance, for the Iraq operation, we have the US, Australia, New Europe, Kuwait, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and South Korea. This is a quite sufficient coalition. The UN didn't facilitate this coalition.

[..]

I mostly agree although I think that the US may find that its flouting of the UN makes it harder to persuade other countries to join such enterprises, especially democratic countries since anti-Americanism is now a viable election platform.

Anyway the latest news is that Pakistan will definitely abstain. Remember that the anti-war party needs only seven countries to either abstain or vote against the motion or one of Russia, China or France to veto.

This means the abstainers/opponents are. Russia, China, France, Syria, Germany, and now Pakistan.

I think Chile will also abstain but I don't know about the others.

So it looks like the resolution is likely to fail without a veto as the pro-war party cannot now afford to drop any one vote.

I hope it fails, because if it does it looks like Blair is toast.

**Andrew1999** · March 10, 2003, 15:23

Pakistan is going to abstain. So that's 6 no-or-abstain votes (Russia, China, France, Pakistan, Syria, Germany.) The resolution needs 9 Yes votes, so at this point an abstention is the same as voting no, and one more no-or-abstain will sink the whole thing. Of course a lot can happen (and a lot of checks can be written) in a day.

**Agathon** · March 10, 2003, 15:26

Didn't I just say that?

**Andrew1999** · March 10, 2003, 15:27

Originally posted by Agathon
Didn't I just say that?

I just took forever to make my post, I didn't see yours when I started.

**Agathon** · March 10, 2003, 15:40

Originally posted by Andrew1999

I just took forever to make my post, I didn't see yours when I started.

Sorry.

BTW were you typing one-fingered or are you just a stickler for style? After all it's not a long post?

Announcement

Will the French and/or Russians veto?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment