Steve Den Beste had a very interesting post yesterday. He had two main points. First of all, he discussed the potential motivations for France, Germany, and Russia in attempting to prevent the US and its allies from going to war with Iraq to remove Saddam from power. He also discussed the end of the UN's effectiveness.
He pointed out Russia’s interest in keeping Saddam in power was due to rational self-interest since Iraq owes them a lot of money, but that Russia wasn’t making big waves to stop the war since this isn’t crucial to their national security. Earlier, I had opined that Russia’s cooperation with France and Germany was due to increased economic ties between these countries – and I stand by this. But Den Beste has provided another reason to understand Russia’s position.
However, it is difficult to understand the position of France and Germany. Den Beste makes it very clear that their opposition is not a morale opposition to war in general, but is specifically opposition to the U.S. and its allies removing Saddam Hussein from power.
I simply don't believe that Germany and France would be willing to sustain, let alone cause, the kind of damage they have just for the sake of moral inhibitions.No one is asking Germany itself to fight. That's not the point being made here. Schröder is going well beyond that point; he's trying to prevent the US and UK from fighting even if German troops are not involved.
it's provably wrong that they are doing all this to prevent war, given that they themselves are fighting one right now in Côte d'Ivoire. It's not that France opposes war in some sort of generic sense; it's that they oppose this particular war by the US against Iraq for purposes of deposing Saddam.
Germany approved of the bombing in Yugoslavia. Remember that? it's not the case that Germany is now the world's biggest principled pacifist which works to prevent anyone anywhere from ever fighting about anything. And if they were, then why haven't they denounced the French intervention in Côte d'Ivoire? In fact, with little fanfare, the UNSC passed a resolution authorizing the French military intervention in Côte d'Ivoire a few days ago. Germany voted for it. Where is that grand public opposition to all war anywhere for any reason?
No, like France the reality is that what Germany really opposes is this particular war, by the US and UK, which will remove Saddam from power.
This begs the question as to why France and Germany are willing to damage European and U.S. relations in an attempt to save Saddam’s regime. Den Beste speculated that they are afraid of what may be found in Iraq if a caretaker government takes over and examines what was actually imported from France and Germany. I hope this is not the case even if it would explain a lot.
While Den Beste clearly makes his point that Germany and France are opposed to this war in particular, not war in general; I’m not convinced by his perspective on the UN.
…the UN is finished as an effective institution (if it ever was one).One thing is apparent: there's no chance, none whatever, of a new resolution authorizing war passing in the UNSC. France will veto it, possibly joined by Russia. So should we submit one?
That's going to be a big discussion between the US and UK in the next couple of days. The general feeling from the Bush administration was that they didn't want to submit another resolution unless they were certain it would pass. On the other hand, Tony Blair has promised his unruly MPs that he would not send British troops to war unless he either had another UNSC resolution or there was an "unreasonable veto" of one.
Certainly a French veto at this time would satisfy his requirement for being unreasonable; no rational person could consider the French/German plan to be a real alternative. It is blatantly obvious that it is a delaying maneuver.
I suspect that in this case Blair will prevail. I think we (most likely the UK formally, but it will in practice be both) will submit a new resolution and it will be vetoed. And then we'll fight anyway, and win, and once we've occupied Iraq we're going to learn a lot of things.
Most of Den Beste’s points about the UN are similar to points I have made in the past – however, I disagree with his premise that “the UN is finished as an effective institution.” I think that is premature. Assuming China and Russia do not veto a new resolution – should one be submitted – I think the UN will continue. Once the war with Iraq is over, I think there will be changes. If France doesn’t change their tune soon, I suspect they will lose their privileged position as a permanent member of the security council. It will (and should) be given to India. France was only given the seat due to an accident of history and politics – and they have shown they didn’t deserve the honor. If this is done, the UN will be around for years to come and will be (at least) as effective as it has in the past. That doesn't mean I expect it will be very effective, but I don't see it getting worse.