British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock formally submitted a resolution to the UN Security Council today (on behalf of the United States, Britain and Spain) declaring that Saddam Hussein has missed "the final opportunity" to disarm peacefully. Essentially, the US is seeking final approval from the UN for preemptive military action against Iraq. France, Russia and Germany, which oppose the war option, circulated an alternative plan to pursue a peaceful disarmament of Iraq over at least the next five months, which China (despite Colin Powell's recent efforts in Beijing) said it also supports.

Some are arguing that if the resolution doesn't pass, the UN could be headed to a period of unprecedented influence. "That's been the great irony of this moment," said Rick Barton, a UN deputy during the Clinton years, "that this administration, which has been inclined to be unilateral... and has these concerns with the United Nations, has given it the opportunity to have great relevance."

"It's a moment of truth for everybody, but certainly it is for the UN, too" according to Chester Crocker, an assistant secretary of state under Reagan. "Are the really major issues of international security - war and peace - going to be managed through a process of consultation in a global body, or are they going to be managed by other units?" Presumably, by "other units" he means a unilaterlist United States - or at least its Executive.

The new resolution is proposed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, making it militarily enforceable. It must get nine supporting votes and avoid a veto by France, Russia or China. At the moment, eleven of the fifteen members of the UNSC are in favor of continuing the weapons inspections. The Bush War has three, maybe four, supporters on the Council (and in the UK and Spain there's even less popular support for war among their citizens than there is in the US - God knows what's up in Bulgaria). Is the Bush administration tempting fate by demanding a hawkish resolution given the current mood of the Security Council? And if this resolution doesn't pass (and it looks pretty unlikely to me), what kind of impact will that have on the future of international politics - and US hegemony?

A military attack through the UN would be more accurately described as an end to the UN cease fire with Iraq as a consequence of its not abiding by the cease fire terms.


It is unlikely to pass, mainly because most of the UN members don't really care whether Iraq complies and disarms or not. Evidenced by the fact the alternate plan being proposed is more inspectors, something the lead weapons inspector has already explained is not the issue. The France-backed plan is merely a stalling tactic, draped in peace rhetoric, ignoring the issue of Iraq's non-compliance.

This is evidence of what I consider the Security council poor design (a single veto stops any resolution) as well as some unavoidable problems of self-interests not related to security. I think this situation will expose that more cleary, possibly with disastrous resuls for the power of the Security council.

Wertz, It seems to me that the US is poised to attack. Hussein has to submit to dismantling his missiles for this tactic to work. I heard on NPR on the way home today that France and Russia feel he must comply with Blix on this point.

I am frankly more worried that the United States will use this conflict with the UN to kick it into irrelevance in foreign policy. Your post indicates that the UN has some leverage in winning a power struggle with the United States and winning a major role in the future of foreign policy at the expense of Bush's more unilateral vision.

But Bush would have to cave to the UN security council. I do not see him doing this no matter what the right course may be. He has laid his and the United States' prestige on the line in this case, and being controlled by a vote of the UN is not his intention.

Well, being how long it took powell to convince the u.s council or what not i dont think anyone should be suprised at the u.n takeing even longer. I dont think most of the world agrees with an attack on iraq at this point, not just a certin group of leaders, and for a finacial gain or an oil gain to be a reason that more countries are backing a slower or non war end to this, i dont think that is the main reason. I dont know exactly what it would be, france and germany have been working with us in afganistan and in the war on terror in their own countries. I think that they want a different resolution or draft for iraq to comply with, not one that is just u.s based in opinion.


The u.s has a tendency under the bush group to see the u.n as something less then it is, i think this might be a problem.

the rockets they found violated an old resolution (though still legit) saying that iraq could not have any missiles that could go further then 90 miles (meaning israel is outside of their range)

they haven't violated UNSCR 1441, which is the one that states he must disarm or else. the cease fire agreement, which is why they can't have missiles with a greater range then 90 miles.

saddam doesn't have WMDs, at least according to his son in law who fled baghdad ( http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9509/iraq_defector/ )

Saddam does need to go, he is an extremely brutal dictator, I think we should arm and train as many Iraqis as possible, maybe provide air cover when possible, and let the people of Iraq liberate themselves.

The new UN resolution proposal is essentially the same as UN 1441, with one line being changed to state that Iraq is not in compliance, as it most clearly isn't.

It will take some back room negotiations, but I believe the US will get a majority as long as China abstains. Cameroon, Mexico and Pakistan, I predict will vote in favor. But they will most likely wait until the 1 March deadline for Iraq to start dismantling it's Al-Samud missiles.

I dont know for sure, but does the current resolution have a line that states food for oil.

Would that leave the country with a less stable economic plateform, one could guess why this is in the resolution, does anyone know.

Clinton is putting a humanitarian pack together for post war iraqi people, i agree with that.

And would you support a u.n that supports power deals in a sense, could that backfire someday and spread a kind of cold war through out the whole planet.

I agree that saddam is out for power, but who is not, i think that the u.s is harming what the u.n is sussposed to exist for in order to force itself upon it. Do you agree, why or why not.

The current resolution does not state a thing about the oil for food program

of course, it's too early in the morning for me to figure it out

UN Resolution 1441




I don't because the US isn't forcing the UN to act on all subjects. Just this one because it is a subject that's been boiling since the Gulf War. The US lets the UN do what it wants except in this Iraq situation

Saddam says he will not destroy the missiles that Blix said must go. Not only a violation, a very defiant one. And we should continue this charade?

I don't know how the UN can maintain any relevance, if it had any in the first place. Just look at the positions held by Libya and Syria.

I don't see the world as being any more peaceful because we have a UN. In many respects it might be even more dangerous because of the cover the UN provides.

While it was a noble idea that gave birth to the UN, it is time for a major overhaul. Better yet, disolve it and start over.

Charades? Okay. Three words: first word: sounds like... Ah, forget it. The answer is POST A SOURCE.

Never mind, I will. This is from CBS News:
Should we continue this charade, Middle?

Wertz, the above qoute is from your source.

No mention of Blix. No mention of trying to get him to reconsider. Those were Iraqi responses from a few days ago.

Please try to keep up with the current 'sources'.

(can't believe I'm referring to Hussein and his band of useful idiots as 'sources')

A perceived indication is hardly a violation - never mind a "defiant" one.

Any thoughts on the questions actually posed by this thread? Is the Bush administration tempting fate by demanding a hawkish resolution given the current mood of the Security Council? And, if the resolution doesn't pass, will it have any kind of impact on the future of international politics - and US hegemony? Please note: I was not looking for commentary on Saddam Hussein nor a critique of the UN.

The position of Syria and Libya due to an equal rotation of positions is not an indication of the irrelevance of the UN. Should these countries be kicked out of the UN or our you simply against the system of multilateral approaches to the problems facing the world?

The u.n is a needed creation. It is a judge that is outside of any one nation.


I think that any country or super power that would like to control the world or state that it can solve its problems is makeing a grave mistake.


If a non war solution to iraq can be made, why would that be a problem. This would be great effort in my opinion for a better world, one that is not hasty to solve things with a hammer.

Be it true or not, in my eyes the world is growing in to itself via population and needs for resorces, the u.n is very needed, without it, i think it would be like thinking with shadows. The u.s should at least realize this if not, caution this is still an opinion, make a branch of goverment to deal with the u.n.

War should be a last resort, if an option at all. I dont think anyone wins in that.

By inferring that he is "tempting fate", one must assume that there is a predetermined course of action that is already set to take place.

Wertz, what is it?



If the resolution doesn't pass, it will further prove that the UN is truly not effective. Resolutions mean nothing without the muscle to back them up.

"Hegemony" has a negative connotation. It infers a nation is forcing its views on its allies. The US is not forcing its views on anyone. We are merely reasserting what the UN has said time and time again in the form of UN resolutions. The only difference is that under this administration, we are demanding the resolutions be enforced.

Mike

Still doesn't matter if the missles won't exceed the 93 mile limit. They tested it & it violated the limit, so the must be destroyed. The UN & Blix has also refused to reconsider the destruction order. Saddam must diarm or face the consequences



*edited to remove unused color tag from quote...

I heard the Iraqi objection about the completed missiles being weighed down with a warhead and a guidance system making them fall within the 150 km limit.

However the missiles already have a warhead and a guidance system and are deployed. Just because Iraq envisions improvements in the missiles in future that would make them fall in compliance, does not mean that they are not in violation. These are not missiles that are in production in a factory. These are presently deployed missiles according to the NPR report I heard this afternoon.

These are the questions Wertz asked us to debate:


I don't think he was interested in rehashing the minutia of the current inspections of Iraq. Wertz, correct me if I'm wrong.

Jaime: You are not wrong. However, Mike raised a few things in his post (arising from my questions) that have made me realize that this thread may be too limited to fully answer them. I believe that the "hegemony" to which I refer goes beyond the UN and, to fully answer his posting, I'm going to start a new thread.

One thing Mike raised which can be addressed here, though:


I'm not sure how you arrive at this. I see the UN as a body which was established in part to ensure international tranquility. I would argue that if the UN defeats the new resolution, that would prove that it is truly effective. Let's not forget that it is the US which is the war-like aggressor here, not Iraq. The UN and Hussein are trying to resolve the extant resolutions as peaceably as possible. The US is trying to ride roughshod over the UN and precipitate a conflict which may be unnecessary in seeing that Iraq finally complies. If the UN can stand up to the unilateral US call for preemptive warfare, that would strike me as an unprecedented display of "muscle" on the part of their resolve. If they had done so from the outset regarding Hussein, the US would need an entirely different excuse to proceed with their Iraqi campaign - and the Bush administration might have found whatever other excuse they would have come up with a bit more difficult to sell - even to the credulous American population.

Such a backlash from the UN is part of the "fate" that I feel the Bush admin may be tempting. And I think that it would set a dangerous precedent for the future of America's influence in the global sphere. This is one of the points I'll be taking up in the new thread, though.


If anyone wishes to pursue the questions raised here, feel free - I'll be back. Meanwhile, I'll be taking up Mike's other points elsewhere. I'll edit this to include a link to the new thread as soon as it's posted...

Wertz, with all this spinning I'm starting to get dizzy!

Let me try some of that...

The UN's effectiveness died long ago, so I guess your president is tempting fate. The fate is that the UN will never make Saddam disarm, and your president is going to change that fate.





It was very easy to arrive at that. Four thousand three hundred and forty-seven days ago, the UN passed resolution 687, requiring Iraq to disarm and creating a cease fire.

At that point, the UN had already placed trade sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions are to be lifted after Iraq disarms.

I have read low estimates of 600,000 children, all the way past 1,000,000 children that have died as a result of Iraq's wish for continued sanctions.

Please, tell me how an organization that allows at least one hundred and thirty-eight children die each day for four thousand three hundred and forty-seven consecutive days is effective?

If the agreement had already been enforced, the sanctions would already be lifted, and the UN would not be responsible for the death of at least one hundred and thirty-eight kids today.

(getting dizzy yet?)



Hussein? Trying to resolve the resolutions?

If he was trying to resolve the resolutions, we wouldn't be in this mess.



Iraq hasn't decided to comply in the last four thousand three hundred and forty-seven days. How much longer does the UN need?



Ok, can we get beyond the falsehoods of a unilateral US strike? According to the USA Today, we have the support of the following nations:



How is that considered unilateral?

And again, resumptive, not preemptive. Read Resolution 687 please.



That is pure spin, with no basis in fact whatsoever. Nice try though...

See how easy it is, Wertz? I can spin too...

Mike

Well that is just more proof that the u.n is effective when makeing the world work together not as seperate entitys, that was nice to see. Being u.n stands for united nations I see that it makes people work together, say if the u.s just attacks, without u.n or even talks, what would that world think at large, hey maybe someday it will allow the world to escape a world war. The u.n is a voice for the world not one nation or two or three even, as i counted that is 29 nations that now support the u.s.


The u.n is very effective for its purpose.

Mike: The dervishes of the world must be expiring with envy.

You are right about one thing, though, I should have made that "bilateral" - I keep forgetting about Tony Blair (which is easy enough if you've ever heard the man speak). Otherwise, what? Twenty-eight under-populated nations have managed to cobble together maybe 5000 troops and the use of their skies and bunkbeds? Cool. At least we've got Latvia on our side.

I will also submit that, without all the Bushy saber-rattling, it's possible that the UN and Hussein would never have got back to inspections. But it has served its purpose. If I thought that the White House was content to serve as a threat, I wouldn't be nearly as troubled as I am.

As for the "pure spin" in your final paragraph, see the new thread I've posted to address your other queries.

This is one of those lines you just put in to see if anyone actually reads your lengthy posts, right?

The UN is under the gun at least as much as Saddam right now. Neither one can be believed, but for different reasons.

This is what makes Bush's 'hegemony' as you label it so attractive. He said we were going to disarm Saddam one way or the other, with or without the UN. Guess what? He meant what he said and is about to back that up.

Now I know that is hard to understand after what we had in the White House before him, but this President actually says what he means and means what he says. Its funny how so many are waiting for the punch line. You know, like Clinton used to deliver.

Not this time. Not this President. Not this man!

Middle: I you wish to compose hymns to George Bush's testosterone - or to gratuitously bash Bill Clinton - please start your own thread. I might also recommend that your review The Rules and Guidelines for posting to this board. Those are two lines I just put in to see if you can actually read this relatively short post - and comprehend it.

My post was clearly within the bounds of the issues you yourself raised, many many words ago. Just because I don't agree with your position is no reason to get your pantyhose all twisted in knots.

Bush, the UN, hegemony, hawkish stance, what it means to the future.....all things I replied to in one way or the other.

Drawing a comparison between the current and most recent former occupant of the White House only serves to buttress my position on issues you raised. It is not my fault Clinton is such a perfect example of how not to say what you mean and mean what you say.

I think drawing a distinction between a man who is acting on his convictions and one who was trying to avoid one (conviction that is) is a perfectly valid point to make. After all, character honor and trustworthiness are at the very core of any discussion of any aspect of this crisis.

I put two questions, Middle. You have addressed neither in any way whatsoever. Positions have nothing to do with it. And I am sick to death of people like you levelling that kind of charge rather than contributing anything of any relevance to the discussion at hand. Unless you finally have something to contribute to this thread other than being as unnecessarily offensive as possible, please exercise you hobby-horses elsewhere.

Well, i feel sorry for the u.n, it tries to struggle and make everyone happy.

I dont know to many people that would like to go into a war torn african nation and try to put in a democratic goverment. Something that they succed in most of the time.

The u.n can only work a resolution that can go without being a veto, france germany and russia are not allowing the current one to pass.

Oh and i forgot china.

Keeping up with current sources, then, Middle... From ABC News:

So much for those defiant violations, eh?

If you ask me, things are looking worse and worse for the US/UK axis and their preemptive conquest. The War Party may yet have to come up with a different excuse for pursuing their self-destructive agenda...

How about the Kuwaiti nationals that still haven't been returned to Kuwait by Iraq from the Gulf War? The Vx Gas & Anthrax still not found? And the violation of UN Sanctions??

Is that not good enough??

No, it's not. You know, GA, I could give a bit more credence to your argument if there weren't such double standards at work. Are you with the UN or against the UN?

You are talking about UN sanctions, UN resolutions, and a treaty between the UN and Iraq. If you're saying we should be doing something about these violations, then we should be doing everything in our power to work with the UN and through the Security Council to support the decisions of the UN. Rather than Colin Powell holding up pictures of buildings and trucks with yellow arrows on them and saying "See? Now the US must act preemptively - with or without your cooperation", we should be sharing our intelligence with the inspectors. "We believe this building is suspect. This is the longitude and latitude. Check it out."

If, like, President Bush, you feel that the UN is irrelevant, then none of the things you mention are any of our concern.

So which is it? Do you support the UN, their resolutions and treaties - and their agreed course of action? Or do you feel that the UN just doesn't matter, in which case, Iraq and its UN violations are none of our business? Or, like the Bush administration, do you want it both ways: the UN is relevant only to the extent that it gives us a handy excuse to prosecute a war which we'd be pursuing in any event?

Just what missiles is it that Iraq is going to destroy? The ones Saddam told Dan Blather he didn't have?

Saddam must sit in one of his 99 palaces every night and laugh his head off at the 'useful idiots' that fall for his crap over and over and over.

Musing from the Middle, you are way off topic. Let me reiterate:

I hope Bush does push for a vote and it's vetoed by Russia, France, and Germany or who ever has the moral fortitude to stand up and do what's right.

I think it would be suicide for Bush to push for a vote with the current climate though.

I have not thought it through enough to anwser the homegeny question...give me time on that.

I do not think it would be suicide for Bush to push through a vote. He has covered himself from the start by saying he does not need UN support for this attack. And the UNSC cannot do anything about it because we can veto any resolution that attempts to condemn US action. Outside of the UNSC no UN resolutions have any binding power.

No, Bush can push for a resolution and take a veto and then call the UN irrelevant and he can call France, Russia and/or China false friends.

All of these things are unpalatable to my tastes, but the Bush administration has positioned itself to make a veto almost a call for immediate action against Iraq.

This just in:

Iraq SAYS it destroyed the missiles

Cyan, I was merely replying to a post by wertz, who started this thread. I don't believe either of us are off topic, but I'll do my best to narrow the focus.

Impact on international politics

If the UN fails to pass the UK/US resolution it will have condemned itself to the same scrap heap where lies the League of Nations. And with that midget monster in North Korea jumping up and down trying to be seen, an international body that has the guts to back up its own resolutions is needed.

When tyrants, despots and mass murderers like those that rule Iraq and NK see a total lack of will throughout the world to stand up to them, they are emboldened.

Hawkish resolution

Anything more than appeasement of this monster would qualify as hawkish in the eyes of the appeasers.

US hegemony

The world will be a far better place as more and more of it gets to experience the freedom that our 'hegemony' hopes to export.

And how do you imagine those tyrants, despots, and mass murderers feel when they see Hussein backing down, allowing inspections to continue, and destroying his arsenal - as he is doing now?

Well, that's deep. And anything less than war will fail to satisfy the war-mongers - and anything less than peace will fail to satisfy the peace-makers - and anything less than dousing Hussein with water will fail to satisfy the water-dousers. You're doing nothing here but defining appeasement as simplistically as possible. So long as you are only characterizing those interested in appeasement as "appeasers", who could quibble with that? My suspicion is that hawks like yourself are considering everyone who wants anything less than all-out, full-scale war and Saddam Hussein's head on a pike as "appeasers". That could not be further from the truth.

Do you have a source for our current administration hoping to export freedom? Our track record in this regard has not been very promising - and the agenda of the Bush administration as outlined by PNAC, for example, does not imply anything about freedom.

They feel happy that they will never play poker with him. He has played with a 'short stack' for more than 12 years. Til now. He's finally run up against someone who is calling his bluff.



Exporting freedom has been a part of just about every policy statement, speech and interview given by members of this administration. Most recently, the President himself at the AEI dinner this week.

As to your last sentence, a not-so-clever attempt to make it appear that PNAC and the Bush agendas are one and the same, just another liberal manipulation of fact. You've been outted again wertz.

Saddam has been rendered irrelevant. War is not necessary when he has to do whatever the UN tells him to. So what if he pretends to be considering requests. He knows he has no choice. I don't believe Bush will ever get approval for war from the U.N.

So, how long will we stay on the verge of war before backing off or going in?

Quite a naive point of view. Doing whatever the UN tells him? Ok, maybe they should tell him to stop torturing and starving his own people. Or maybe they should tell him to stop building palaces with the aid money given to him to feed and give health to his people. Better yet, why not just tell him to take his toys and go home!

Oh, and btw, the President of the USA does not need approval from the UN for war.

This is exactly the kind of uninformed thinking that makes for .....ah.....never mind.

If the U.S. doesn't need the U.N. what's up with this:



Guardian

Maybe we are only doing it for Blair. He does seem to need the U.N.

Please tell me why I'm naive for believing Saddam is irrelevent yet you are not for believing any of the unsubstantiated claims the U.S. has repeatedly tried to sway the U.N. into believing. How come they don't believe he is a threat? How come Turkey, it's neighbor does not believe he is a threat? Only a select few on the council will be bought into war. I'm not the one that's naive.

The u.n will not mean much after the u.s tells it to suck eggs, that is for sure.

And for all of you pro war people, i think that you should go join the marines or something.

Hey maybe we will fight china next, and go nuke.

Sounds like a case of textbook paranoia.

I've never found The Observer to be a reliable source of news in the U.K. because it's got a slight Anti-American stance and has always applauded the U.S. Anti-Iraq War protests, calling them "getting the devil to listen"

It has never been too kindly to Blair either

goamerica,
It's a respected news source that I don't need to defend to someone that would only believe a story if it came from Faux News. Besides, it's off topic. I suspect you will be hearing more about it from other sources since the story only broke last night.

Why would you be surprised in the least that the U.S. would stoop to such tactics? This administration feels entitled to spy on everyday American's emails and phone calls so of course they would, as a matter of course, spy on U.N. delegates.

However, even you must admit that the behavior, if true, is wrong and dishonest and possibly criminal. It's simply another example of the way the U.S. is undermining the U.N. while warning it not to become irrelevent by not allowing war. The U.S. has already scorned it at every turn and done all it can to make the entire process illegitimate. If the case against Iraq were strong all of this spying and bullying and bribing would be unnecessary and we would have some shred of credibility to stand on.

Turnea has started a thread on this spying matter. Please join the debate here NSA Watching Security Council...., getting the "heads up", or just spying..

Clarification added.


The official UN position is that they do consider Iraq a threat.

Just not the clear and imminent threat that would allow it to be attacked. But enough of a possible and past threat to take inspections and disarmament very seriously which is the responsible course of action, IMO.

Not exactly, they have not yet called for an attack but...





They do admit there are grounds for an attack.

There is a difference for having grounds for an attack and having an attack be the right thing to do. Clearly Danya would rather take the course of using the UN to resolve crisis unless an immediate, proven threat from Iraq arises.

I see great honor and responsibility in tackling this challenge to find a solution to it. But I disagree that we have exhausted our options short of waging war. So far now, on the US v. UN debate I prefer the UN pace on this issue and I feel that we lose credibility by appearing so darn eager to unleash this war, even if we have justification.

We will do real harm to the credibility of the UN if we go to war without its blessing. We should understand the consequences of a world where the UN is as relevant as the League of Nations. Countries will find a way to seek protection in a balance of power. Then we will have real foreign policy problems.