According to this news report, the Security Council of the United Nations has voted 15 to 0 to support the US-backed resolution on rebuilding the Iraqi government.

Security Council OKs Iraq Resolution

How significant do you think this lopsided vote might be? Is this a diplomatic victory for the USA? Or does it show willingness on the part of the USA to compromise? Both? Neither?

Does this signal a warming of relationships between the USA and those nations that opposed the war in Iraq?

How significant is the "surprising" support of the resolution by Syria?

Will aid in the form of troops and/or logistical support from other nations be forthcoming? Or was this a symbolic gesture only?

Let's see, the UN passed 14 resolution asking Sadam to disarm himself, which he never did...

I think the nations of the Security Counsel realize that the U.S. is THE power of the world and are desperate to be back on its side.

I think the nations of the Security Counsel realize that the U.N. nearly became completely irrelevant over the last year.

I think the U.S. wants to mend broken bridges.

I don't think nations like Russia, France, or Germany will offer significant help. Wouldn't it be nice if they cowboyed up and did the right thing?

Of course I disagree with campbejm.



You're missing the point here. There was a press release which made it clear that our agreement was set to serve three goals :

1. we want Iraqis to know peace ; therefore we have to start with something
2. we want to show the Arab countries that something can be achieved in the Middle East
3. we want to show the Americans that we can be all united together for the same cause, even though we've said that the ambition of the resolution was too low



If the Security Council was so irrelevant, why did your secretary of state spend almost two months trying to convince the members? Why did your government bother to change the resolution four times before it was accepted? Because the US believe the Security Council is necessary.



As a matter of fact, we won't contribute at all at this point. That was also said in the press release. I personally think that France is nowhere near to sending troops or spending money for Iraq, because the state of our economy doesn't allow us to do it. We have economic duties to the European Union and we've sworn to reduce our expenses and debt. A participation in the Iraq conflict would only make the situation worse and in the end, we would fail the EU.

France agreed to the resolution. It did not veto, it did not vote no, it did not abstain.

France, Germany and Russia offer no troops and no money, only their "Support". Well, if that's all they can offer, the US will take it.

At least they aren't getting in the way anymore.

Bush is getting more heat because of the lack of "multilateralism" than the lack of funds (although that is also a factor).

The US has shown that it is willing to compromise somewhat, but it will not give up its principles.

The Syria vote is big, since the US expected a "no" and would an abstention would be a "huge win". What's bigger than "huge" I wonder?

The summary of the Resolution:
-Multinational force under US command, with a call for money and troops from all UN members.
-Sets a Dec. 15th deadline for setting up a timetable for drawing up a Constitution and holding elections. There has already been an indication that elections would be held in 2004.
-No timetable is set up for the transfer of power to an autonomous Iraqi government.

The international opposition is on board now, I wonder if the Democrats will follow suit?

Exactly. I believe this move is driven more by a desire to silence the critics (good luck!) than any "need" for the UN to provide greater help. Help is welcome, but "necessary" is pushing it...


I glad they (France, germany, Russia, etc) didn't hold out on this issue. You probably know what I think of the pointless request for a timetable...

I think it is a definite diplomatic victory, although the actual importance of it is yet to be seen. But it certainly sets the table for future cooperation, thereby indicating that many of the previous wounds have been healed, at least somewhat.



Yes, I think it does, although I think this was probably also inevitable. For France, Germany, etc. to continue to oppose resolutions such as this one would have been counterproductive for them. Therefore, it would have served no purpose.




I think the Syrian vote is very significant--probably more so than the French and German votes, as this signifies a potential change in direction for them, and was not expected. Although Syria had cooperated in the past on this issue, this also would have been a convenient time for them to get back at Israel by thwarting the US.

As for whether any future material aid or troops will come--time will tell. It's certainly more likely now than it was before. I think it will eventually become France's and Germany's self interest to become financially involved--esp. France, as they were doing significant business in Iraq before the war (which was one of the main reasons they opposed it.

I'm surprised Syria didn't at least abstain. I think the incident with some infiltrators on the Iraqi/Syrian border with our guys (no american casualties, but 6(?)attackers dead and some captured) kinda sent a message that we are watching you and your actions and whatever else goes on near the border area. They also feel the heat from the Israeli accusation of a terrorist camp near the Syrian capital.


I think aid in the manifestation of money will come but not troops. The attacks and the frequency are still scaring some.

Now, France is supporting our democratic resolutions and I hope France is going to at least contribute money for the Iraqi people, so France will take back the great relationship between France and the United States again which was lost in the Iraq war.

But you know, actually I was shocked when I heard that France, Germany and Russia finally came to our side, I didn't expect that was going to happen at all.

Horyok:

I definitely agree with you.

Also I wouldn't read too much into this UN resolution. I think it was just passed to let Dubya gain a little face. Whether he deserves it, remains to be seen.

By the way, I still like FRENCH FRIES NOT FREEDOM FRIES.

You are obviously not making any sense at all. If the particular countries don't want to help us, then let it be. We won't care, but let's see what's waiting for them afterward.



Good for you then, but I don't think it was necessary to express your Pro-French attitude thing.

I think the most significant thing to come from this unanimous vote is it will take away one of the platforms the Dem candidates were using to remove Bush from office.

You all are completely missing the point. Well all except Horyok and few others.

The reason the UN voted unaminously on this resolution is they know the only way to solve the current mess in Iraq is to let the rebuilding go forward, and with an average of 25 attacks a day ( funny how we only hear of one or 2 day eh? ) they know more countries must become involved.

It has nothing to do with pro or negative american feelings, its about getting past this.

And what would of come if the UN voted against the resolution? Potentially even more grief and chaos.

And no it's not they all of a sudden agree with the actions America has done.

was the vote 15-0 important? yes. It was an important signal to the international community, Arab nations in particular, that yes they are all on the same page as far as the rebuilding of Iraq.

What is blatantly hypocritical is that the usual suspects ie: Franco-German-Russia will NEVER put their money where their mouths are. No troops, no $$$$, no nothing.

Other words, their vote was a facade...yet again, as it was with 1441. It's in their best interest to NOT seem to be going along with the US TOO much. It strengthens the perceived position that this 3-some is the US alternative. Their resolve in doing so also sends a signal that THAT trumps the need to come to the aid of Iraq in real and useful ways.

At the end of the day, Iraq needs to be rebuilt. The Iraqis need to have a functioning sovereign country. It needed to be rebuilt with OR without Saddam.

That just basically makes the vote unimportant because the point was to get the UN on board, thus getting Germany, Russia and France to send troops and money. Now they say they won't do squat. Scared little hypocrites who don't wanna participate or at least donate a Euro into re-building the country. There aren't any French troops in Afghanistan, even as they keep saying "we will send troops to Afghanistan". Scared to get their hands dirty. Guess they ran out of white flags.

If Iraqis ever find out that France or Germany said that they will not send money to re-build, they can kiss that possible friendship goodbye.

I don't believe anyone in the administration expected these three to contribute (they have domestic audiences to play to you know... ). Rather it is the hope for contributions from nation like India, Turkey, and Pakistan that was the driving force behind the resolution.