--- "J.D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reading between the lines here, basically what > happened is this: a country whose leadership > supports > the war, but faces unhappiness with the war among > its own people and/or possible diplomatic retribution > from > France is going to be unlikely, ceteris paribis, to > vote for a resolution when it knows that its "yes > vote" won't count anyways due to the veto. Since the > UNSC votes in English alphabetic order, France would > thus have the opportunity to veto very early, and > nations with a vote before "F", i.e. Chile and > Cameroon, could simply wait to pass first before > seeing if France would vote "no." Thus, the French > veto really did "poison" the discussions, since it > made the opinions of the "undecideds" essentially > unknowable. <snipped rest of articles>
This is the "wrong" thread (I think it's something like "Replace the UN?"), but since I still have ~ 100 posts I've saved to read/possibly respond to, I'll ask: did someone already suggest revoking the permanent UNSC members individual rights to veto, and maybe replacing that with a 4 or 5 (permanent) members-to-jointly-veto right? That would still give 'perms' more power than regular members, but they'd have to work together to veto any resolution. The more reading I've done on the recent history of the UN's actions (or lack thereof) WRT Iraq, the less effective it seems to be. :( [I was basically 'out of commission' during GWI and for a while afterward, and have been trying to catch up on that.] Debbi GSV Backlogged __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
