Handicapping the Security Council vote on the NEXT Iraq Resolution

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

It seems as if Blair (more so than Bush) needs/wants a majority of the UN Security Council to back a Resolution authorizing military force. Even if the Resolution is vetoed by say France or China, a majority in favor has propaganda value. Particularly with respect to Guinea, Angola, Cameroon and Chile, I wonder if anyone has some insight into their possible votes. I currently handicap the vote as follows:

Those most likely to vote in favor of military action: UK, US, Spain, Bulgaria

Those most likely to vote against military action or abstain: China, Germany, France, Syria

Swing Votes: Russia, Pakistan, Mexico, Guinea, Angola, Cameroon, Chile

My own feeling is that the US probably has enough chits to call in and/or things to offer to persuade Russia and Mexico to vote in favor. I’m sure that Pakistan would not relish the role of casting the deciding vote one way or another. It would probably much prefer that the US get enough votes in favor of military action so that its vote becomes unimportant and it can abstain. Guinea, Angola, Cameroon and Chile become real important players.

If the US can count 9 or 10 Security Council votes in favor of a new Resolution, the pressure on China and France to ABSTAIN rather than VETO will be enormous. Knowing that the majority of the Security Council is in favor of authorizing military force AND knowing that the US and UK will attack Iraq anyway, a UN veto will risk all future prestige and relevance of the UN Security Council.

My prediction:

In favor of Resolution authorizing force (10) : UK, US, Spain, Bulgaria, Russia, Mexico, Guinea, Angola, Cameroon, Chile

Opposed to Resolution authorizing force: (2): Germany and Syria

Abstaining (3): China, France and Pakistan

2

I don't think there will be a force athorization. I think that Iraq will be declared in violation. Then the US and the UK can do as they please and claim that there was a material breach. There is too little time to get a resolution.

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
I don't think there will be a force athorization. I think that Iraq will be declared in violation. Then the US and the UK can do as they please and claim that there was a material breach. There is too little time to get a resolution.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting. If only a Resolution finding Iraq in material breach is presented to the Security Council, the vote could be as high as 14 in favor with only Syria opposed and Pakistan abstaining.

4

MV,

The current resolution took 7 weeks to write. The US has timetables in mind. All that is required for the Saudi's to jump on board is some political cover. The same with a lot of other nations. If Hans comes back on the 14th and reports that mobile biological labs have not been turned over and he reviews Powell's information and agrees that the door has not been flung open wide, then the council can declare him in breach. the anti war factions can say that they did not endorse war, and the UN can say that the inspection process was valuable and timely, and the dissolution of the UN was avoided.

The other theory I heard the other day is that the $15Bil in aid to Africa was the idea of Kofi! Obviously we should help those that are ill just to satisfy Bono, but that was a pretty big olive branch to Africa.

5

Before all is said and done, France and Russia will both back the U.S. led Coalition.

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Before all is said and done, France and Russia will both back the U.S. led Coalition.
[/QUOTE]

I very much agree with you regarding Russia. Putin is far too clever and savvy to burn up his reserve of political capital with Bush and the west for Saddam.

I am much less certain of France. It's ambassador's comments seem to acknowledge that Iraq is NOT cooperating and is in breach of UN resolutions. Yet, the French sugggestion of doubling or tripling the number of inspectors and strengthening their monitoring gear seems pretty lame. Of course, the history of France is that they coddle up to whoever they perceive as becoming the ultimate winner in any confrontation. I doubt whether France has ever vetoed any UN Resolution sponsored by the US and don't see them doing so now without the support of the majority of the remaining members of the Security Council as cover.

7

The worst part is that all the anti-war lobby think that France is doing this because they think it is wrong to go to war,or because they think Saddam has no weapons,its not it is purely for nationalistic reasons and everyone will find that out when this is all over.

8

Braveheart is'nt everyone doing whatever they are doing for their own interests and nationalistic reasons? Not that there is anything wrong with it, but lets get real no one does anything for purely altruistic motives..not in politics, domestic or global.

9

whatever the resolution is, pakistan will either abstain or vote with the US

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
Braveheart is'nt everyone doing whatever they are doing for their own interests and nationalistic reasons? Not that there is anything wrong with it, but lets get real no one does anything for purely altruistic motives..not in politics, domestic or global.
[/QUOTE]

Of course they are and your right there is nothing wrong with it,thats the way the world turns.

11

There are currently 11 security council members who oppose war and favour a diplomatic solution to the Iraq standoff. Those countries are France, Russia, China, Germany, Mexico, Chile, Guinea, Cameroon, Syria, Angola and Pakistan. Only the Governments of Bulgaria, Spain and Britain backed the US.