* Bryon Daly [Tue, 01/04/2003 at 18:14 -0500] > Jean-Marc Chaton wrote: > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon, 31/03/2003 at 21:44 -0500] > > > It is true that the indefensible position of the French (no war > > > ever no matter what) made things more difficult. > > > > It was not the position of France. It was 'no war as long as > > progresses were made' > > Two problems with that: 1) Without firm criteria for "progress", > *anything* can be stretched to be defined as progress, and Iraq could > maintain its passive-aggressive blocking of the inspections forever. > > 2) When the US/Britain tried to create a verfiable set of tests for > compliance, France rejected them outright, immediately, even before > Iraq did, because they had a specified consequence for failure. > France then said they would veto any UN measure that had war as a > consequence or set a deadline. > > So, as you say, France's position is 'no war as long as progresses > were made'. But France refused to even set an ultimatum or deadline > or condone any talk of war, so we can translate this to "no deadlines, > no consequences, no war as long as progress is made". Combine that > with there being no firm definition of " progress", and a refusal to > define a set of clear tests of compliance, and France's stance then > effectively becomes "no war no matter what".
I understand your position but I've not seen the events that way. I think France, as the broad majority of the council, was agreeing with the necessity of a verifiable set of compliance tests, with the presence of a deadline (which length was under discussion) and the presence of the threat of military action. This was a considerable step forward. The thing France didn't want was the automaticity of the start of a war as a mere consequence of a grammatical conjunction. France wanted the security council, i.e. humans beeings to convene formally and declare the start of military action. This position was put forward by Chile _after_ the UK proposal see : http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2384624 But the United States rejected it outright, immediately, even before Iraq did. I still think it was a valid point of view, even if one disagrees, I mean not indefensible. Are you sure you don't confuse yourself with Germany position (no war no matter what) ? -- Jean-Marc _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
