Ciao!

France and Germany (though not necessarily Russia and China) have no interest in seeing an end to the UN. They may have legitimate reasons to oppose war against Iraq. But they should reconsider whether they're willing to risk the end of the UN as a consequence.

Why have France and Germany to reconsider their stance? It's not them who threaten to go without the UN. If they need to reconsider just to keep the U.N. in existence, what it means is that the U.N. had become a tool of the US. It is, IMHO, the U.S. who threatens the most the existence of the U.N..

I start to dislike more and more the attitude by the current U.S. administration. It appears as if dissent from U.S. opinion is not acceptable and that those who are out of line need to be punished.

You said earlier, every country has the right to its own opinion. The U.S. should respectfully accept that France and Germany think a War in Iraq is not necessary (at this moment) and that they won't participate in that. I think they have the right to say that. After all they are sovereign nations, not satellites of the U.S.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I'm not saying that France and Germany need to reconsider their position "or else" (or anything of the sort). They have a right to disagree (although I think their reasons are just as disingenuous as they claim Bush's are). And they should probably abstain.

What I mean is that they should reconsider whether reluctance to act on Iraq is worth risking the end of the UN (and possible even NATO). Maybe it's worth it to them. But I don't think so. It's probably worth it to Russia and China, which are independently still near-superpowers and can carve out a good position for themselves in a future post-UN world order. France and Germany, however, cannot (of course, neither can Britain). France derives much of its international prestige/muscle from its UN veto power. W/o a UN, France is just another European country.

Also, I think Bush has demonstrated a remarkable willingness to work w/ the UN. More so than Clinton did. Clinton, after all, didn't seek UN approval to continue enforcing the no-fly zones in Iraq (which are not sanctioned by the UN). Or to act in Kosovo. Or to send cruise missiles into Sudan and other places. Bush, on the other hand, sought a UN resolution (S. C. 1441) and is now seeking another one. He's been trying to get the UN to enforce a series of eighteen resolutions dealing w/ Iraq since 1991.

I don't necessarily like Bush. But. The question now is: Does the Security Council enforce its resolutions? If not, then the council is irrelevant already. And if so, then the US (like any other country) should seek to secure its vital interests. Period.

Technically - if you read the previous resolutions - they allow the use of force against Iraq. And if you read the current resolution, it doesn't even mention force. It has only two operative paragraphs: 1) declaring that Iraq has not disarmed and 2) deciding to "remain seized of the matter." That's it. I posted a link to it. It's there for reading. That's all it says. France and the rest don't even want to sign on to a resolution that merely states the obvious - Iraq has not disarmed.

Of course, that's their prerogative. And if the UN dissolves (and I'm not so sure it will), that's their choice. I don't think the US will start a war w/ France or anything of the sort. But as the EU expands, French-German influence will only continue to dimish.

I think I understood. It is still trying to say that the stance of Germany and France is wrong. Is the pushing by the United States not equally threatening the existence of the U.N.? The appearance that the U.S and the U.K. will go whether or not the U.N. approves or disapproves is as threatening as a possible reluctance by Germany, France, Russia, China and other powers.

Then again the Germany and France aren't saying that there shouldn't be done anything. Germany even recently acknowledged that war may not be avoided. However, Germany won't participate in it. And ... at this point, Germany thinks war is unnecessary as Iraq currently cooperates, even if it is reluctant. (I think that expecting happy compliance is far from reality anyways).

The stance is that as long as Iraq cooperates the inspectors should be given the time they need. And this is not the schedule Saddam is asking for, nor the schedule Bush is willing to give - it is the schedule Blix thinks is appropriate.

I can only speak for Germany's situation, but I do understand why Germany is reluctant to go to war and trying to achieve Iraqi disarmament. There are certainly concerns about the stability in the region. I also think there are worries about German economic interests disrupted in the Middle East. But I think these are all minor worries compared to the domestic worries.

The German economy has been at a standstill for almost the last 7 years. The last year has been bad in economic terms: Economic growth was down to 0.2 %, rising unemployment, rising prices after the introduction of the Euro, declining domestic sales, declining revenue and Germany violated the stability pact set by the EU for monetary stability. Germany is only allowed to make 3% of GDP in new debt; however, the deficit crisis in the German budget required Germany to make 3.7% of GDP new debts and faces now penalties by the EU.

A war is most likely to worsen the economic situation. As you could see, unemployment is already high. The worries about a war have strengthened the European currency, the Euro, making exports increasingly expensive so they slow down some income for the German industry (i.e. car exports to the U.S.). Rising oil prices in case of a war would not only increase the prices for gas for cars (which is currently at about 7 to 8 $ a gallon). Transportation industry will be affected. War also affects the tourism industry. Rising oil prices will also increase costs for other industries etc. All these is most likely to spiral Germany into a recession and it is most likely to go over the allowed range of 3% for new debts.

As for France: France also exceeded the 3% boarder and its economy is said to be in bad shape. Maybe it is a similar thought here that makes France opposing war so vigorously. I do not think it is due to Anti-American feelings.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I'm not saying that France and Germany need to reconsider their position "or else" (or anything of the sort).

This (pressure on Germany to reconsider or else) is apparently already going on, yesterday I read news that an American company called of trading relations with a (East) German company due to the stance the German government takes on Iraq.

To Melli:

I am an American. I support a war against Iraq. The US does NOT seek HELP from Germany or France or any other nation. The US sought permission to enforce existing UN resolutions - Iraq must disarm. Take a look back at history - European nations DO NOT typically ask permission to protect their own interests, yet they insist that the US ask permission. Did Britain ask permission before the Falklands war? Did France ask permission before sending forces to Cote d'Ivor? Kosovo? Bosnia? No.

Since its founding, 26 international "wars" have taken place. The UN sanctioned 3 of the 26 (Korea, Kuwait, Afghanistan) - all three US "Wars". Do not try to pretend that the US is the "cowboy".

President Bush requested support from the international community to resolve a twelve year old problem, a problem that we fear. We do not ask for your participation, or financial support, but we would prefer if you did not lobby against us. Thanks.

Terry:

The cost this permission comes for Germany is high. We do not need to financially support the U.S., but a war will most likely come at high costs for the German economy, costs, that at this point may be threatening to an already struggling german economy. There is also other stuff involved: allowing the U.S. to fly over Germany in their war, to move stuff on the railroad system from U.S. bases ... protecting U.S. bases, taking on refugees from the war, helping to protect other nations like Turkey and Israel in case of an attack ... and all that as a consequence of a war which at this point can be avoided. And this is what Germany lobbys for ... to avoid war and give the inspections more time. Time that is requested by the inspectors.

Melli,
Your entire argument is dependent on a fallacy. They are inspectors... not detectives. Seven years wasn't enough so you should examine the transparently obvious intent behind the 'inspections'.
Without full Iraqi compliance inspectors are simply enabling Saddam and preserving the status quo of Billions of dollars of UN oil profits earned through the 'sanctions' 'managed' by the UN that profit the French oil companies that move that oil. The Germans and Russians have been selling illegally and that is the only "high""cost" Germany will have to endure.
Time is not needed by the inspectors... time is money for the UN, Germany & France and needed by Saddam.

Danegerus:

I know Germany has trading relations with Iraq and certainly is no angel. The exports to Iraq amounted to 403.8 million Euro in the last year, which ranks Iraq at #77 in the German export rankings. The imports from Iraq amounted to 5.7. I acknowledge there may be some illegal sellings not covered in these stats ... but this may be the same for all other countries.

As for the oil, oil is the major export commodity for Iraq. And France's share is about 9.6% out of all oil exports Iraq makes. These exports were in 1999 worth 8738 million US$. The US share is: 42,6% or in numbers: in 1999 the Iraqi export to the United States amounted to 4226,4 million $. You may argue that was a different administration, but the exports to the U.S. last year were at 3592.80 million US$.

The next major export partner for Iraq after the U.S. is Italy, then France, then Spain.
Sources of information: CIA factbook, U.S. census, arabdata.net

I doubt that the opposition of Germany (and maybe even France, even though I do not trust the French a whole lot) is driven by their interest in Iraq or the Middle East. I am afraid major reasoning for the continuation of the inspections is of domestic economic nature. OPEC is at the limits of supplying oil - so a war would most likely lead to a shortage of oil - a shortage of oil would drive up prices for gas and oil in general which would affect the domestic industries, that are struggling already.