Figuring the numbers game (UN vote possibilities – will France have the guts to veto?)

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | March 11 2003 | Caroline Overington

[dead]

The United Nations Security Council has 15 members. The United States needs nine of them to vote for the second resolution for the war to be UN-approved.

So far, the US has four votes - its own, plus those of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. Germany and Syria are deeply opposed. France, Russia and China are also opposed, but it is not clear whether they will vote against or abstain. The other six - Chile, Cameroon, Angola, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan - appear to be undecided.

So, how will this thing go? Here are some possibilities.

First, the second resolution could be passed 15-0, just like the first was.

This is not impossible, since the Security Council always strives for unity, but it seems unlikely, as Germany and Syria have said they will not vote for war.

Second, the US gets the six undecided members to back the resolution, giving it 10 in favour. In that case, France, Russia and China would have to decide whether to go with the flow, and vote for war, or abstain.

Third, the US could get 10 votes in favour, but France, Russia or China could decide to kill the resolution by using their powers of veto.

Fourth, the US could fail to get support from the undecided six, and the resolution would fail without any need for a veto.

In that case, the US would probably still go to war, with help from Britain, at least 12 nations from Europe, plus Japan and Kuwait, and probably Canada and Australia.

The US still hopes to get UN approval. It claims it can get the six undecided members to back the war, and it could be right.

On the other hand, France says that the US doesn't have the numbers. If France is wrong, then France, Russia or China would have to kill the resolution by using the veto.

The French President, Jacques Chirac, has said that France will "assume its responsibilities" in relation to Iraq, which most commentators have taken to mean that it will use its veto.

But UN officials have told the Herald that they just can't see France looking hard into the face of world's only superpower, and then putting its hand up to defy it - especially not after the US has gained a majority on the Security Council.

[nonliberal]

Veni, Vidi, Vichy! "I came, I saw, I surrendered."

[Jambe]

I'm afraid when the votes are count the total will be short of the 9 desired. Here's my forcast:

For: UK, US, Spain, Bulgaria, Angola, Guinea

Abstain: China, Russia, Germany, France, Pakistan, Chile, Mexico, Cameroon

Against: Syria

The numbers are against the US/UK/Spain resolution. 5 of 6 undecided countries need to vote in the afirmative. If only two of those 'on the fence' choose to take a 'neutral' position and abstain the resolution will fail to pass.

They will turn tail and say "We supported you because we didn't vote against you".

On to Bagdad -

[goldstategop]

I really can't wait for us to start rolling.

[ijcr]

There is another scenario, as long as China and Russia abstain and there is a majority in the US corner...then France has to veto or acceed.

A sole French veto would isolate them for the next twenty years,having to pay cash for oil, removed from the food programs, rebuilding contracts and loss of power in the African continent.

Tuesday, we shall see who blinks and if the French hold their line, the prospects of recesssion and spiraling unemployment will shake Chiraq's giant beetroot collective.