SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (56155)11/7/2002 10:29:39 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Yeah, Nadine, here we go. I think the final part of Den Beste's column hits the nail on the head.

>>>Both sides in the negotiations were actually playing to the American electorate. France was hoping for an electoral victory by the Democrats, or at least a maintenance of the status quo, which would be interpreted as a vote by Americans in favor of multilateralism, and they didn't get it. What they actually got was full Republican control of the government for a period of 2 years before the next voter referendum, and the clear understanding that this totally frees Bush to do what he thinks he must do, even if that means ignoring the UN entirely.

France's negotiating hand was always weak, but its value declined drastically on Tuesday, and the government there gave up because it became clear that the threat of a French veto was no longer something Bush had to pretend to be impressed by. What is now important for France is that the US not publicly repudiate the UNSC, and so it is now the lesser evil for France to vote to pass something acceptable to the US rather than to veto it and watch America proceed anyway. And since the French government can't admit to its own supporters that it gave up, French diplomats are declaring that they won, even though they didn't.

Tomorrow the resolution will pass, and we'll be at war in less than two months.<<<<<