Discussion on a 2nd Resolution.

Let me start by asking people who wish to reply to this topic to try and not let this subject become polarised as so many topics are.I know,pretty much,where people stand on this coming war but I am genuinely interested in how others here think the question of a 2nd UN Resolution islikelyto be resolved.I am less interested in how individuals think itshouldbe resolved.

The options,as I see them,are as follows:

1/Resolution tabled by UK/USA and passed perhaps with abstentions(but no vetos) from any one or all of the other Permenant Security Council Members.

This would mean an about face on behalf of France and Russia and to a lesser extent China.This would take time or a damning Inspectors report from Blix.

2/Resolution tabled by UK/USA but at least one of the Permenant Security Council Members uses their Veto.Yet there is an overall majority in the UN Security Council as a whole.

Blair recently has been hinting that if a Veto was used unreasonably a simple majority would be acceptable.Few doubt that a majority could be found.The Non-Permenant Members are:Angola ,Bulgaria ,Cameroon ,Chile ,Germany ,Guinea ,Mexico ,Pakistan ,Spain ,and Chile.For some of the smaller countries this is the cash equivilent of a Non League Football Club drawing Manchester United in the FA Cup.
Of course the more Permenant Security Council Members use their Veto the less easy it is to justify this position.

3/A Resolution is not even tabled as:a)There is no point as it will only be Vetoed,b)Resolution 1441 gives the UK/USA the right to act within international law without a further Resolution and only further consultation at the UN is needed, not agreement.

This would cause major problems for Blair.He could concievabley do this but the political consequences,even if the war were quick,would be dire.

Personally,I doubt he could take option 3 as it could make the entire country unstable and without the UK would the USA go it alone?Perhaps,Perhaps not.
Option 2 would signal the death of the UN.Stability since WW2 has depended on Permenant Security Council Members excepting the Veto of their peers to ignore even one Veto would be to recognise what is probably obvious(though dangerous)that the USA is today without peers.The death of the UN would be slow and dangerously unpredictable.
Option 1,in my opinion,offers the safest and surest way forward.But will Bush wait?I don't think so.

So,As you see that brings us right back to the beginning.If there is an option that I have missed out please feel free to add it and let me know how you see this conundrum unravelling.

The UN is a joke. Any organization that credits/lifts up Libya, Syria and Iraq...is corrupt. Of course, the US is being forced to go through this group of loonies to be civil. Meanwhile the so-called peaceful countries like France, Germany, Russia, China, etc are using the UN to cover up their dirty deals with Iraq.

France is using their VOTE to protect their OIL deals with Iraq, while claiming to be all about peace. France doesn't care if terrorists get WMDs from Iraq because those terrorists will most likely attack Israel, the US, the UK and others....not France. They are going to stall and stall and stall the inspections that Saddam will never really give into, thus they keep their OIL deals intact while looking like a "peacemaker."

my bet is on number 3. I think the US has gone to great lengths to get all those troops over there. Then again, it could be like what Sun Tzu says 'war by deception' they could just be messing with them to scare them half to death, which I think they've done good at so far, by getting them to let these inspectors in.

Thankyou Grommer for addressing the issue.
I do not think that the UK will go with the USA if there is no UN involvement at all.Blair has been stating that he is determined to go down the UN route.Would Option 3 look so likely if the USA is without the UK?I know the USA could do it but would public opinion allow them to?

Option 2 is certainly not on the cards, FM.
At present, I suspect that the US and UK will appreciate the window of opportunity afforded by delays in inspection and the possibilities of prolonging inspection.
I see Option 3 as possible - for Bush, at least: and I would not be surprised at sustained domestic anti-UN campaigning (not that that would need much).
I frankly cannot see (nor ever could) a resolution that will be satisfactory both to the UN and anticipate a gradual disengagement from the UN (with real or suggested reasons) by Bush and Blair.

The other possibility might be the contrivance of some relatively fatuous UN resoulution- one might recall the The United Nations Security Council passing Resolution 502 calling for the withdrawal of Argentine troops from the islands and the immediate cessation of hostilities - which could then be interpreted as justifying military action.
It wouldn't be along those lines -there's no real "occupation" or denial of self-determination short of very lengthy skulduggery amonmg the Kurds -and I don't see Saddam being tempted into Kuwait again.
But, there is at least scope for diplomacy there.

'Would Option 3 look so likely if the USA is without the UK?I know the USA could do it but would public opinion allow them to?'

I think it is more than likely that they would go without the UK, they've already stated that they would go at it alone if need be. As far as public opinion is concerned I'm not sure what to believe. From what I've been reading (alternative as well as mainstream media) it seems a good % of the public are against it. So we'll see if it plays a role in it or not.

I would think they'd go with option three. At least I'd go with option three, but Bush has been much more patient than I think I could be.

I think the most likely to be option 1 the UN and US would suffer too much in the long run if they did n`t and I think they realise this. All this maneouvering by the involved parties is little more than deception to the public, to give then more time so they can sort everything out in murky back room politics.

Estragon,I'd be interested to here how ,roughly, a contrived UN resolution may read.I think Res 1441 is as vague as you could get.It shows,in a way,how dangerous it is to pass a UN Resolution just for the sake of "International Solidarity", by that I mean that the International Community agreed they had to pass a Resolution late last year but the five Permenant Members couldn't agree on whether to threaten force.As soon as Res 1441 was passed we had differing views,around the world,on what exactly was agreed.From that momment on I,and I'm sure you all,knew that a time would come when the USA/UK would insist on their definition,and France,Russia,and China would insist on theirs.

To Cassini and any others who think option 1 more likely I would say that although everyone would agree that Option 1 is preferable,ultimately time may be the factor which rules it out for those with the power to decide.Weather conditions seem to be dictating the timetable here,though I'm not convinced that the technological supiority,at night,of USA/UK is so great that it could be to the allies advantage to wait.Afterall during the day the Iraqi troops would have the same problems as the Allies but at night it would be no contest.My own view is that France and Russia will be hoping for a damning report from Blix which would make Option 1 acceptable.(In that case I would be the first to take my hat of to one of the greatest pieces of strongarm diplomacy in history).

To TC,Grommer,and others who think option 3 more likely I would say that I'm not entirely convinced that Bush has the political will to go it alone.I've no doubt that the USA would win,and the diplomatic consequences for the UK,if they pull out, would not be pleasant(especially if Bush has a second term)but could the citizens of the USA cope with that kind of international isolation especially after 9/11.

Since 9/11 the people of the USA have been helped by international support.That kind of attack can lead people to ask questions of their country that before would have been unthinkable.The big question that every American must of asked themselves(even if for a fleeting momment)would have been."Is it possible that these terrible attacks could have been justified because of the way our country acts abroad?"The flood of international support answered that question within hours of the attack."No"said the world"And what is more we stand with you".I don't believe the people of the USA are ready to throw the security that international consensus brings so soon after 9/11.

Of course I may be wrong and I look forward to hearing from you on this.

One last point.I've been trying to find the exact timeline of the Kosova War.Did Russia Veto?Is there a precedent there?

'To TC,Grommer,and others who think option 3 more likely I would say that I'm not entirely convinced that Bush has the political will to go it alone.I've no doubt that the USA would win,and the diplomatic consequences for the UK,if they pull out, would not be pleasant(especially if Bush has a second term)but could the citizens of the USA cope with that kind of international isolation especially after 9/11. '

I have no doubt either that the US would win, and also agree that it could mean the crapper for the UK as far as the diplomatic aspects are concerned. But if I had to guess at whether or not he would go at it alone I'm guessing he's gonna go for it.