Good old France and Russia are at it again!

Seems that they don't want the economic sanctions on Iraq to be lifted. The Russians claim it is because they don't know if Iraq still has WMD. France is using spin to explain why they are against it, in other words, they aren't giving a good reason.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20030421.shtml

This article and a couple of others that I have read claim that it is because France and Russian are wanting to recoup some of the contracts they have lost because of the fall of Saddam's regime. I disagree. IMO this is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the US & UK. Russia and France want, at any cost, to see the war end in failure, even if it results in further destabilization of the region. This is nothing more than divorced parents using their children to punish each other. And just like in that analogy, the people of Iraq are the ones who suffer. Russia and France know that the US will take the blame for the failure. :mad:

Just another nail in the coffin that the UN will be buried in! :D

[ April 21, 2003, 15:14: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Neither the French, the Russians, the Germans nor the Americans can have the Oil of the Iraqis.

The only way to make that possible, would be to install a new dictatorship with a Iraqi-Born regime.

A dircect occupation of Iraq can not last, contracts now made without a properly working home-made Iraqi goverment will not be worth the paper their written on. Because without brutal force, Iraqi political groups will seize power and make plans for selling of their oil on their own.

Now, if the Americans don't act carefull and respect the sensitivies of the Arabs, I think they're going to face a outburst of public opinion like 1979 with the persians.

How many contracts which were made by the shah in the time before 1979 are still valid ?

Edit:

UN: It's sure that the UN now is going to be "reshaped", if this process ends in a coffin, is another question. And "decolonization" is a speciality of the UN.

At Darkwolf: Thanks for the hint. :cool: :)

[ April 21, 2003, 15:39: Message edited by: Yago ]

I hadn't finished the post when I accidentally hit the tab and return key. Only the first line was posted. I went back and edited it to add the rest.

Yago.

I don't know if you are still happy with your post, but I wanted everyone to know that you had not seen all I was writing before you made your comments. (They still seem valid to me.)

Opinions aside, UN resolutions called for the removal of WMDs from Iraq, so technically until UN inspectors haven't completed their job, sanctions are not to be lifted.

Heh. I commented on this in a different thread, but I'll reiterate. It is an illogical position to maintain sanctions on Iraq. Why were the sanctions imposed? They were imposed due to noncompliance of the Iraqi government to adhere to UN resolutions. Now that the original government is out of power, there is no reason to think there will be further noncompliance

IMO, this position is purely economic in nature, which leads me to believe that their original position on the war was also economic.

Oxymore wrote:

Opinions aside, UN resolutions called for the removal of WMDs from Iraq, so technically until UN inspectors haven't completed their job, sanctions are not to be lifted. BTA, Oxymore described the legal problem already. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. The only legal way to get the sanctions lifted is to declare Iraq WMA-free.

Problematic for the US.

IMO, this position is purely economic in nature, which leads me to believe that their original position on the war was also economic. BTA, we have finally found common ground. :D

It think it's not accident that the US has now troops on the two biggest oilfields on the world (a.k.a. Saudi-Arabia and Iraq). If someone wants to make the world a better place, why not start with Burma ?

BTA, Never ascribe to an opponent motives meaner than your own. :evil:

We did win the war And are now legally entiteld to own Iraq for the next 70 years ? Oh, no, they changed international law 1945, you can no longer wage war for profits.

[ April 21, 2003, 18:29: Message edited by: Yago ]

This is really off-topic but how can anyone gloat over another nail in the coffin of the UN? That is like jumping around in glee because the Red Cross has gone bankrupt. The UN may have a ton of flaws but it is still the best hope and try humanity has ever done at peace. It saddens me that large parts of the citizens of the most powerful nation ever on Earth screams in glee as their government dismantles the organisation that their own forebearers helped to create for the good of all mankind.

Joacqin,

It saddens me that large parts of the citizens of the most powerful nation ever on Earth screams in glee as their government dismantles the organisation that their own forebearers helped to create for the good of all mankind. I am sure that the Iraqi people would believe that the UN has the best interests of all people in mind when they refuse to remove the sanctions.

Just because you create something with good intentions doesn't mean that you don't get rid of it when it obviously has turned into exactly the opposite of what you intended.

The UN is broken beyond hope of salvation insofar as it being a world government. It has become an organization by which the agendas of 5 nations are played out to the detriment of all. The pretty words of the UN Charter can no longer hide the fact that it is rotting from the inside out. It is sad, but it has no more to do with America than it does Russia, France, England, and China. All 5 have to share blame equally. Just as the League of Nations gave way to something greater, the UN must do the same, if not, international law will continue to diminish in importance.

Don't worry though, there is still a role for the UN (other than being a bad example for posterity), it can still continue to fleece the wealthy nations of this world to support the third worlds most brutal dictators through its various "charity" and "welfare" programs. :rolleyes:

So here we are, the UN doesn't allow the US to do whatever they want then it is useless and must be replaced. When the law (even the law you invented) is against you, you just have to change it, don't you?
But yes, the law is bad, outdated, so we will change it without asking anyone how they feel about it.
When some decided that the League of Nations
didn't fit their agenda, they left, we all know what happened after that. I'm not happy with the way the UN works right now, still it's better than to see the world ruled by a lone nation taking upon itself to shape the world into a colony.

Could you give an example of UN funding brutal dictators?

The actual events are most ironic after it has been the US and the UK who've been pressing on continuing the sanction against Iraq, despite all the suffering of the iraqi people as a result of the sanctions. The effects were so bad and the ignorance of the security council (as a result of the US and UK blocking attempts to discuss that issue) so evident that two coordinators for the UN Aid Programs for Iraq, Halliday and von Sponeck, both resigned in protest. As I'm in a quoting mood ;) : Madeleine Albright, in "60 minutes" on NBC in May 1996:
When asked "If the death of more than half a million children would be the price we have to pay ...." she replied: "We think, the price is worth it."Aside from the fact that the iraqis were the only ones to pay: Resolution 687 had no rule about when to finish the sanctions on iraq, or to adapt the sanctions from period to period based on their effectivity or effect on the civilian population. That also means they can only be stopped with a majority, including all permanent members of the security council.

Additionally the resolution was formulated very unprecise, that Iraq had to "cooperate in all respects" (whatever that means). The british and US diplomats called that "constructive ambiguity" and used it as an argument to continue the sanctions, as there has been reasons plentyful to state that.

More, the US and the UK have continuously blocked the oil for food program with the claim that the iraqis used it to finance their military. That, as a matter of fact, is wrong as the UN within iraq rigorously controlled the way and delivery of the products, medical material mainly, from approach in Basra harbor to the hospital where it was to end. The US and the UK frequently claimed that the iraqis were discriminating minorities in the south and the north. According to the leader UN-Aid-Program von Sponeck the chance of the iraqi gvt to do that was zero due to the strict control of the UN workers in iraq. Von Sponeck quickly became unpopular in Washington and London when he started to write reports on the general humanitarian situation in Iraq.

The US regularly vetoed oil-for-food sales in the sanctions comitee. Only about 75%, sometimes even less, of the goods ordered by Iraq passed this comitee. The embargo included stuff that could be used militarily, stuff like pencils (as the graphite could have been used militarily, or in school - consequently the alphabetisation rated in iraq dropped considerably), water filtering devices (as these could have been used to supply clean water for troops - or to civilians) and so on :rolleyes:
The conditions for iraq to buy medicine were harsh: Unlike in normal transaction where the buyer has to pay 15% in advance the iraqis had to pay 100% in advance, resulting in poor quality articles delivered by companies dissolving right after the transaction :) This rule however, was meant to prevent the iraqis to aquire cash in secret.

The need to somehow pay it's employees - the oil-for-food program left the iraqi gvt without cash, a rule including that was included for north iraq - forced the iraqis to find other ways to get money. They smuggled oil to turkey (accepted by the US as a compensation to turkey for the "free" use of the base in Incirlic. The US only stopped that in face of the actual Iraq war. The US foreign policy is like a bazaar. :D ), jordan and later Syria. Pro-US jordan earned money with that and bought US weapons with it. The US and the UK were very well aware of that and where the money came from.

However, after that 12 year long cynical game with the iraqis the US get a taste of their own cure. Their own trick in the security council to strangle Iraq now works against them. Congrats. After the stuff they've done the last 12 years they now accuse the evil russians and french to ruthlessly endanger poor iraqi civilians. How kind hearted.

The US ignored the UN when starting the war against Iraq. Now the UN wants back in as the rest of the world wants to have a look at what the US do. I find that is totally legitimate. Besides, I don't at all share your point of views about the UN Darkwolf, but we had that already.

[ April 21, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Oxymore,

My negative feelings have nothing to do with them not allowing the US to do whatever we want. It has to do with a long list of failures and shortcomings. Here is a short list of those:

1. The only nation to ever request approval for military action: The US, while France, Russia, and China do whatever they want without asking, and without repercussions.

2. Iraq was to head the committee on disarmament? That would never work; even the UN saw that, so they assigned a co-chair, IRAN! :rolleyes:

3. Lybia was the chair of the human right committee? :rolleyes:

4. The head of the UN Liars Committee (aka the security council) is from an nation with less technological advances (high tech stuff like phones, radio stations, and internet providers :rolleyes: ) and colleges than any mid-sized city in the US.

As far as an example, how about we start with Libya? :rolleyes: If you would like some more, just go look at a map of central Africa you will have your pick of at least a half dozen.

Ragusa,

After the stuff they've done the last 12 years they now accuse the evil russians and french to ruthlessly endanger poor iraqi civilians. How kind hearted. Lets see, the reason that the sanctions were still in place was because the US insisted that Saddam's regime comply with the UN inspections. Saddam’s fault, not the US. Saddam's regime is gone, and now the Vichy-Russian alliance wants to make things hard for the US by punishing the Iraqi's, knowing full well the US will take the blame. And you state that you think that is alright:
I find that is totally legitimate. Your hatred of America is showing. :toofar:

I used to think that the French and Russians were entitled to their opinion, and that they might even be proven right, but now I say to hell with them. They were wrong, and now they want to behave like children and lash out in the only way they think they can get away with. I tell you what, when my 5 year pulls a stunt like that he ends up with a spanking.

Time to start totally ignoring them, and the UN. Start selling Iraqi oil on the open markets, and if they won't buy, sell it to US companies at the open market prices. OPEC might even have to cut its production to keep prices up. Iraq gets the hard currency it desperately needs, and OPEC gets hurt. Sounds like a WIN-WIN. :D

Time to start totally ignoring them, and the UN. Start selling Iraqi oil on the open markets, and if they won't buy, sell it to US companies at the open market prices. OPEC might even have to cut its production to keep prices up. Iraq gets the hard currency it desperately needs, and OPEC gets hurt. Sounds like a WIN-WIN. Sounds like a tradewar and on both sides of the atlantic and hundreds of thousands loose their jobs. Yes, both sides. Interdependence.

I'm just calculating how much the volume of sales of Bioware outside the US is. I have no exact idea, but it must be a big share.

[ April 22, 2003, 00:38: Message edited by: Yago ]

Not at all hatred Darkwolf. It's just that the US face an obstacle they used and erected themselves. And it wasn't only Saddam who was responsible for the sanctions. I see this situation as a reward for the neocon way of foreign policy.

The US ignored international law and the UN to start the war against iraq and to shape the middle east. Bad enough.
Now they are offered a deal by the rest of the permanent members: Either you let us in again or we obstruct your activities. Unilateralism doesn't work. That's the clear mesage from russia and france.

And look at the US plan to invade iraq via turkey - it didn't work because the turks disagreed. The US won anyway, but still it messed up a good deal of planning. Unilateralism, based on superior strength, has limitations. You cannot force or bribe all the world to obediance. It just doesn't work.

[ April 22, 2003, 01:03: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Darkwolf,
What military actions are we talking about? When have France, Russia (not USSR) ... invaded and occupied another country since 1945?
As for US, the UN approval for the Korean war resulted in a scandal that forced Lie to resign, no UN in Vietnam, sanctioned for intervention in Nicaragua, authorized to search for binLaden&Co in Afghanistan but not to a regime change or military occupation ... hardly a shining example.

A nation chairing a committee doesn't mean that nation runs the show: the security council presidency is assured for one month by one of its member (non-permanent members included) so Pakistan has or will be the chair of the council, that doesn't mean they can take the UN into a war with India; Hans Blix is from Sweden, but Sweden wasn't in charge of the inspections in Iraq. The secretary general is from Ghana, this state doesn't "lead" the UN.

UN interventions in Africa are of the humanitarian kind, never I have heard the UN sold weapons to a dictator, gave money to him or bought him oil at a cheap price.

Vichy-Russian alliance Now your hatred for France and Russia is showing.

Time to start totally ignoring them, and the UN. Start selling Iraqi oil on the open markets, and if they won't buy, sell it to US companies at the open market prices. OPEC might even have to cut its production to keep prices up. Iraq gets the hard currency it desperately needs, and OPEC gets hurt. Sounds like a WIN-WIN Oh boy, the world conquest begins ...

The US ignored international law and the UN to start the war against iraq and to shape the middle east. Bad enough.
Now they are offered a deal by the rest of the permanent members: Either you let us in again or we obstruct your activities. Unilateralism doesn't work. That's the clear mesage from russia and france.Oh yes, that's real nice. Continue to punish the Iraqis because you disagree with the US. Makes great sense there. :rolleyes:

Now let's look at the language of the resolution 687.

Paragraph 22 states that the sanctions imposed by resolution 661 "shall have no further force or effect" if Iraq completes actions in paragraphs 8-13.

Paragraph 8 states that Iraq shall accept the destruction/removal/etc. of various weapons. Check.

Paragraph 10 states that Iraq will no longer try to make any of those weapons. Check.

Paragraph 11 states Iraq will reaffirm its standing in the NPT. Check.

Paragraph 12 states that Iraq will not aquire or build nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-useable material, tell the inspectors where all its current nuclear material is, place it under their control, and submit to inspections to verify. Check.

Paragraph 13 has no specific requirements of Iraq. Check.

So that leaves paragraph 9, which states that Iraq will provide locations and amounts and types of the various weapons described in paragraph 8, submit to inspections of Iraq's capabilities in these types of weapons, and yield possession of these weapons to the Special Commission.

So. Given that the government that had control of these weapons, and knew where they were is gone, it is unlikely that a complete list of the weapons will ever be provided.

So, I guess according to France and Russia the UN should maintain sanctions on Iraq forever.

Yep. Real nice. :rolleyes:

Yago,

You will notice that I said market prices; I never promoted anything that will initiate a trade war. You are reaching a long way out there with your stance that Bioware would be in some manner damaged by the Iraq selling oil outside of OPEC. I would be curious as to whose theory of economics you base that one on.

Ragusa,

The UN is not the body that was envisioned all those years ago by those who founded it. It has become twisted and perverted, and yes, the US had something to do with that, as I stated when I said:

It has become an organization by which the agendas of 5 nations are played out to the detriment of all. and All 5 have to share blame equally Ragusa said:
Now they are offered a deal by the rest of the permanent members: Either you let us in again or we obstruct your activities. Unilateralism doesn't work. That's the clear mesage from russia and france. I disagree. That is a clear temper tantrum. They are saying, "We didn't get our way, so the Iraqis have to suffer, and we don't even have the courage to stand up to you ourselves, so we will hide behind mommy's skirt (the UN) while we do it".

The Turks didn't disagree, they just asked too high of a price. They rolled the dice, and they lost. Don't try to insinuate that they took some high ground, or decided that they weren't going to be under the heel of the "Bad Americans".

That hurt our plans terribly; we probably would have shaved a whole 3 or 4 days off of the war if we had come down from the north as well. Actions have consequences, and Turkey will pay a price for their decision (as in far less foreign aid from the US).

Oxy,

I am not going to keep providing you with a history lesson every time you plead ignorance of it to try to prove me wrong. :rolleyes: You tried it once, and were proven wrong. There are other posts on this website discussing France, China, and Russia unilaterally attacking another sovereign nation to protect their own interests. But just to show you that I am not making something up, do a web search of France and the Ivory Coast. ;)

I never said that the chair of the un security council "leads" the UN in the manner you suggest. Quit putting words in my mouth.

My reference to Vichy France is a reference to history. During WWII, Vichy France agreed to give up all of the Jews to Germany, knowing full well they would be slaughtered, for France's gain. They sold out their morals for a little comfort. Vichy France of today is forcing the people of Iraq to suffer, again, for France's gain. If the word "Vichy" isn't PC enough for you, too bad. (Damnit, I said I wasn't going keep providing history lessons. Oh well!)

Hatred? Nope. Extreme lack of respect. You bet!

And last: Explain to us all how allowing Iraq to sell its oil in defiance to the un starts anyone's conquest of the world. :rolleyes:

BTA,
You're perfectly right, that's a cynical point of view, but: After the 12 years of sanctions, the sudden care of the US policy for iraqi civilian interests, comes somewhat as a surprise. One or two more months will hardly make a difference. Russias and France's way isn't less cynical than what the US and the UK did the decade before. Even when not opposing the US ain the security council earlier - the humanitarian situation in iraq was it what made france withdraw it's air force from southern watch.

This embargo was outstanding in intensity and brutal in it's exectution. The US and the UK used the embargo to "contain" or better: strangle iraq. And, as Madeleine Albright so nicely said, the death of half a million iraqi kids was a price the US thought was worth it. So who's cynical? The US are making "double talk" when accusing france and russia of beeing inhuman, as they smartly shut up about their part of the disaster.

Darkwolf,
where do you take your deep disrespect for russia and france? After all: Is the US any better?

I have always failed to see the glory in bombing a country to rubble and then stressing the humanity of helping the survivors in there to rebuild it. And where is the military glory of massacring technologically inferior armies from a safe distance with "precision weapons of mass destruction" like laser guided bombs, MLRS, ATACMS and the like? Where's the difference to firing at spear armed tribal warriors with mashine guns?

Human rights activists even see the effects of the 12 years of embargo as a genocide. The numbers about the child mortality have been brought up by UNICEF, one of the successful organs of the in your eyes so incompetent UNO - and have even been accepted by the US. UNICEF still received US and UK beating for "obstructing" US and UK policy and "spreading iraqi propaganda". But their reports were so much propaganda that the US and the UK soon after initiated "Oil for food" to relief the iraqi population. Uh, no propaganda in the end?

The US- and UK maintained the embargo against opposition from Anand - who even continued von Sponecks (the man who dared to care about humanitarian issues in iraq) job for a year despite US and UK protests. But eventually the UN was unable to stop both countries. That alone is a failure of the UN, and of the permanent members.

Man, I know we're free to express our opinions but by the way people post, it would make it appear that we're all experts. Maybe we should run our countries. Imagine having the authority to say that this leader is evil, this country is good, this institution is obsolete, etc. Hey they're opinions. They're stated as if they were facts.

Also, let's stop with the country bashing, especially US bashing. I'm not a fan of the US but enough is enough. And if you're country is bashed, don't be baited into running to its defense. It makes it appear that you will support you're country whatever it does even if you don't. Some people intentionally make comments here to provoke others. You know who you are.

The french army has not invaded Ivory Coast, bombed its cities and no french general is leading the country now. That's a defensive action (a rebel representative urged French people to leave the country on national TV), as was the war in the Falklands, Tchenya is still a part of Russia, China's actions were mainly border clashes...
No you didn't say to security council works the way I described, it was just an exaggeration to say "Lybia chair this, Iraq chair that" don't mean anything.
Thanks for the history lesson, I actually knew that part. Point is Vichy is a thing of the past, so referring to France as Vichy is like referring to Germany as the third Reich.
And no, selling oil isn't a sign of the will to conquer, ignoring UN and international law for a "win-win" is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2955793.stm

At BTA:
UN resolutions demand that Iraq prove itself free of weapons of mass destruction before sanctions can be lifted. 1. I think that's the legal position were facing.
2. It's indifferent for the suffering of the Iraqi's now, if the sanctions are lifted, they're suffering because of the big unstability right now.
3. To the American Oil plans, see my post above.

At Darkwolf:

1. I just took Bioware to stress my interdependence point. Europe and America are economically so tight, frictons are going too hurt.
2. Whom you want you to sell the oil too anyway?
3. The Vichy one was under the waistline. I try normally to stay away (but it's hard and most wouldn't believe me anyway) from America bashing, but does racial segregation say anything to you ? Every country has ugly stains in it's history.
4. There's nothing more understandable than the Russian standpoint, considering the last 400 years of European history.
5. Countries and Nazi-relations: http://members.aol.com/bardbooks/index0500.htm

At Charlie:

1. Academically, we're running our countries anyway-> democracy.
2. Like Depaara pointed out in another thread, (But stating slightly different intentions) I do it for masochistic pleasure and some learning. But no one in the world is an expert really.

I don't think anyone from France has posted in this thread yet. Wallonie, I presume.

[ April 22, 2003, 12:58: Message edited by: Yago ]

It clearly is about the other permanent members pressing on letting the UN back in. Chirac made that crystal clear in his press statement (http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2003/chirac_irak041703.asp) : Question: What do you think of the United States’ desire to lift the sanctions against the Baghdad regime?
Chirac: We think the lifting of the sanctions is an objective to which we have long since subscribed. Now, it is for the UN, naturally, to define the modalities of the lifting of sanctions.
... (this can't be decided by the US alone as it requires the votes of all permanent members) ... the part he doesn't say is the most important one. The message from france and russia is clear: Unilateralism doesn't work.

Yago - I laid out the pertinent paragraphs of the resolution in question. I don't see where it specifies that Iraq must prove itself to be WMD free for the sanctions to be lifted. But news articles often oversimplify things.

Resolution 687 clearly stated the conditions under which the sanctions would be lifted, and I see them meeting all conditions except for the one I pointed out that will be impossible to meet now.

Ragusa,

Unilateralism doesn't work. It seems to me that the if the actions of the coalition are to be defined as a unilateralist (the US has support from many nations, quite a few of which are European), then the actions of Russia and France would have to fall under the same definition. Before you make the argument that what France and Russia are doing is done within the framework of international law, I would ask you what right do Russia and France have to unilaterally interpret and enforce such laws? They are threatening not to let it come to a vote. No one else gets a say in this issue, or for that matter, had a say in the issue of liberating Iraq, just because the Russians and French say so? The nations with veto power get to speak unilaterally for the entire UN body? France and Russia (or the US, UK or China) get to enforce said laws all by themselves?

That is one of the reasons why I say that the UN is broken. The US and the UK proved it by "unilaterally" attacking Iraq against the will of the UN with no repercussions. The stance of the UN was made "unilaterally" by the French and Russians, thus confirming what the US and UK have already proven.

If preventing unilateralist action is one of the goals of the UN, I believe that your statement supports my belief that the UN was fatally flawed from inception. But then that is the US’s fault too I suppose. :confused:

Darkwolf,
the other permanent members aren't willing to hand total control over middle east policy to the US. That's the reason for the current situation. The US have, by themselves decided to go to war against iraq. This decision, mainly influenced by Cheney and Rumsfeld, was iirc made in september 2001, when Bush signed an executive order for the war in afganistan. It included in a then-secret second part the order to work out plans for a war against iraq (that became known publicly in january 2002).

The UK, driven by the desire to prevent the US from acting on their own, were probably played for a sucker in their attempts to handle the conflict via UN, as the US decision was made already: War on iraq, with or without UN. As Perle said (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/coalition.html) : "I think there were overwhelming practical considerations. One is we weren’t ready so the argument is that you’ve got nothing to lose by going to the UN :hmm: (Why?) :hmm: . Second, there’s a high probability that you will get the approval of the United Nations and in that case you’ll be in a much stronger situation politically. So why not go to the UN?"That implies that the decision was made already, and that the UN and the UK were only consulted to get a better standing. And at that time no one had joined the US in their plan. If the decision over war with iraq was made in washington, long before international consulting on iraq began, if that's not unilateral, what then?

As for the "coalition of the willing", you remember Yago's post (http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000249;p=2#000 037) on it? A nice quote (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/n03192003_200303194.html) first: The number of countries willing to be part of disarming Saddam Hussein gives lie to the charge that U.S. action is unilateral, according to State Department officials. It included:

Australia, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, United KingdomAnd now the fun begins :)
Afghanistan, South Korea, Albania, Colombia, Philippines, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Uzbekistan, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nicaragua
Well, except for the UK there aren't the other "big boys" from the security council included. The US acted without the UN, on their own, unilateral - insofar as they tried to override the security council. The remark from Defencelink is misleading as it tries to mask that fact that by naming a couple of countries.

One might notice that a substantial number of these countries are heavily dependent on US military support (South-Korea, Japan), financial aid (the whole lower part of that list) or had to pay back a thank-debth as a result of a US favour - like the acceptance in NATO (east european countries). And, of course, there have been rumours about bribery :D Amusingly the supporters include afganistan, a country, recently occupied ... err ... freed, that has a president who, without foreign aid, can't even control his own capitol. IIRC Slovenia got eroneously listed either, which additionally hinted on that it was a determined and well planned diplomatic approach and not a ... panic reaction for PR only :evil: "The fact that 45 countries are involved helps point out what we've been saying all along -- that U.S. actions are not unilateral," said Pentagon spokesman Marine Lt. Col. Mike Humm.:shake: Right :shake:

Unfortunately the number is totally irrelevant as the only number of interest here were the 9 supporters (among them the 5 permanent members) the US would have had to convince in the security council. And again, the decision for war was made in washington. The whole "coalition of the willing" stuff is a classic example of blowing fog.

As someone else said: The coalition of the willing was a joke, but serious for the iraqis.

[ April 23, 2003, 21:13: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ragusa,

Your entire post is nothing but spin. You never once address the main point of my post, that the UN is a body of unilateralism by its very structure.

I give you credit, like a good paladin, you used your shield to redirect the attack without taking the brunt of the force. Unfortunately, in a discussion such as this, it can back fire when it is recongnized as a re-direction of the topic, rather than a responce.

The now "liberated" people of Iraq should not suffer (economically or otherwise) because of a misguided maniacal dictator. also as far as the U.N. goes, let it crumble. it's nothing but a poor imitation of the League of Nations that was created by Hailie Selassie I. after the "league" reformed into the U.N. they shunned the aformentioned emperor and left him to deal with the Nazi Italian invaision of my homeland. much to the surprise of the U.N. Ethiopian horsemen armed with spears and arrows drove off the facist bastards with very little loss of life for either side. look it up. so poop on the U.N.

You never once address the main point of my post, that the UN is a body of unilateralism by its very structure The security council and it's origins. One of my favourite topics.

The system is simple: Realpolitik and Balance of Power.

I begin in the 19th century. Important Developpers: Metternich and Bismarck.

Balance of Power is needed to stop an enemy who is stronger than you. Examples in history for Balance of Power:

France under Napoleon

To stop France: The holy alliance: Prussia, Austria, UK, Russia

Security alliance for the new founded Germany 1871-1890

To stop France: Germany, UK, Russia (Ever noticed that the German Emperor, The Tsar of Russia and the King of Great Britain were cousins ?)

WW1

Germany and Austria-Hungary

To stop them: Russia, France, UK

WW2

Germany

To stop it: Russia, UK (and a little bit USA. Hey, they met the Germans only in the 5th year of the war)

So underlying idea: To stop a big power from occupying the others, alliances have to be made BEFORe that happens.

-> Security Council. Idea: Including all the important powers, so they can stop eachother, before they go to far. And a war may be avoided (good Idea for the cold war ;) )

They article that Laches posted in the "An American Opinons Thread" has some good hints concerning the Balance of Powers and the Security Council and it's composition.

So: 1945: Powers that have to be included to follow this goal: UK, France, USA, Russia, China, India.

China and India -> They're going to be the important superpowers of the future. Problems: India was at that time British colony. So how put it in the Security Council ?

2003: Security Council: Problem is, the members don't reflect true power

Russia: No comment. There situation is bad in the moment.

France, UK: Should both not be in. Ideally, there would be a seat for the EU. Problem: The EU is statistically a Superpower, but isn't united. So common foreign policiy is (at the moment at least) not possible.

China: Sleeping Dragon

USA: Needs no comment.

India: Biggest problem. Is not in, but is like China a sleeping dragon. Just a bit (huge bit ?) behind China.

So obvious problem: The USA can do what it likes.

BUT: Problem for the USA: Imperial overstretch. The height of American power has been exceeded. (The Laches thread first post gives interesting clues to that fact).

On the other hand, the European (and the Japanese, South Korean I presume) Ego is quite big. Bigger than ever before. (At least, so is mine). The French and Germans know, that theoretical, the EU (even more so together with Japan and South Korea) the can stop the Americans or at least damage them severly. IF there would be a political will. Or as Kissinger sarcastically commented:"Has Europe a phonenumber ?"

Now, the last part is not humbug, it actually happened once. The Helms/Burton-Law concerning trade with Cuba and other Nations. It passed the congress, but the president (Clinton, Bush Jr.) did not dare to sign it, because a great number of countries (Including EU, Japan, Mexico, Canada) threated with retaliation should this Law be signed.

Hu, my rant has ended.

much to the surprise of the U.N. Ethiopian horsemen armed with spears and arrows drove off the facist bastards No, I guess that wasn't a surprise at all. :D But anyway, Italy is a. part of the coalition of the willing b. has vowed in it's capitulation, that it will give stolen artefacts back to ethopia. Now, Prime Minister Berlusconi, asked if he would, after more than 50 years, consider to give those artefacts back, said bluntly:"no".

[ April 24, 2003, 01:18: Message edited by: Yago ]

Good work Yago. It must also be reminded that the UN represents in the situation of powers in 1945 (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html) : Permanent members were the five victors of WW-II - US, france, UK, russia ... and China. The two "enemy states" of Art. 53 of the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html) (Chapter VIII) are no one else but germany and japan.

After all, this is a major flaw of the UN. But on the other hand: In situations like civil wars in africa and other remote places where the rest of the world gives a ****, the UN cares for the people who would otherwise be forgotten.

Of course the UN need a reform. Globalisation of problems and conflict has to be dealt with by global politics. That's what Boutros Boutros-Ghali (http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951023/cover4.html) wanted. That scared the US off, who saw him endangering their privileged status, as he wanted to strengthen the UN, give her more influence worldwide. They consequently torpedoed him, a step that resulted in Kofi Annan becoming secretary-general who was deemed to be more pro-US.

But, weird, weird, the employees of international organisations tend to identify with their jobs and tasks, putting aside national interests. That can be observed in europe when watching the european commission. This is the great potential of the UN - and what some countries fear most - the strength of an idea.

The US like the weaknesses of the UN, as the little episode with Perle showed clear enough. They exploit it. When the UN disagrees it is criticised as weak and insufficient. When the UN backs US action it is good and glorious, successful especially. The US postition towards the UN is atavistic, as the US still think they could handle the world on their own. They can't.

The UN can only be as efficient as the permanent members want it to be. Together. With full support of the five and of conflict parties the UN has been quite successful (http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm), just think about her great contribution to international law. TIME: What do you think would happen if the U.N. suddenly vanished?

Boutros-Ghali: We would have to invent something new, which would replace the U.N. under another name.

TIME: Why?

Boutros-Ghali: Because the planes landing at Kennedy Airport are landing according to international convention, which was signed by the United Nations system. Because the shots you take against yellow fever if you are going to Africa are done according to the international system. We will be compelled to use an international system. There is no other way.
No country can survive on its own. Have you ever considered what an amount of diplomacy the US had to do wouldn't the UN bundle a good percentage of it?