I don't see the flexibility in Bush's speech or general positions allowing for negotiation or concessions. Where in the speech did he signal a willingness to compromise on anything that the member nations have signalled they care about? Where does he signal he's open to negotiation on ending the monopoly of American power over the occupation, reconstruction, or the contracts that have been awarded exclusively to US firms. Mentioning (not conceding) any of those could have started constructive negotiations. Does the speech even contain any details about the new resolution Bush wants? This speech was targeted to a domestic political audience rather than an international diplomatic audience. It might serve to make people believe Bush is attempting to use the UN, but he continues to offer it no meaningful role. And that's a shame.
That is funny, in another board people are saying that Bush was too solicitious of the UN. Everybody is putting their own spin, but I think I am right on this one. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Lets watch and see what kind of deal Bush gets from the UN. If he doesn't get a favorable deal, then I am wrong and this speech was no better than the one that failed him last year. But if he gets a good deal from the UN, then maybe the speech was effective and not as bad as pundits on both sides are saying. Based on what he and Chirac said, I see more hope than I did before yesterday for an increase in UN help. And that is what we all should hope for if we care for the poor people of Iraq.
Well, it seems like the US sponsored resolution passed unanimous, with very few changes from the original version. Perhaps I was right, after all?
Not really. While Bush probably came out slightly ahead (because he did get an agreement) it is only slightly. Because the White House refused to give in at all (mainly with regard to a time table and control of the reconstruction) Germany, France, and Russia refused to commit any troops. In any case, the speech was significant only insofar as it was a signal of Bush's willingness, or in this case lack thereof, to negotiate. It's not like any speech by anybody at this stage of things is actually going to change minds at the UN.
Everybody was critizicing the US for acting without being given legitimacy from the UN. Now they have that, and it was unanimous. Even Syria voted for it. And armed with this resolution it will become easier for the US to get help from other countries. We already saw Korea and Japan willing to pitch in. I don't think we would have seen this before the UN resolution. I think that the very fact that France and Russia did not only fail to veto, but voted in favor of the resolution, is a great diplomatic victory. It will not undo all the hard feelings that the war created, but it is more than what we could have expected. That is what I perceived when Bush and Chirac spoke, and many dissagreed with me. Since so many times my opinions are put down here by both liberals and conservatives, I thought I would indulge myself and point out that my prediction was correct on this occasion.
First of all, the criticism that the US acted without a UN resolution remains viable, since this resolution pertains only to reconstruction/post Saddam governance and has no implications that participants such as France and Germany now see the US invasion as legitimate. I'm not sure if this is what you were talking about with your first sentence, but I thought I'd make the distinction just in case. Certainly things could have been worse for the White House (and, by extension, US forces in Iraq). However, neither (or no side, given there are more than 2) side is very happy with the resolution, based on the press evaluations I've heard. It's just that nobody could afford to go it alone under the circumstances. Therefore, in my opinion, calling this a great diplomatic victory is an overstatement, and a pretty big one at that. By the way, I don't know about Korea, but Japan said they were willing to commit funds even if the resolution did not pass. This may have been a result of White House diplomacy (frankly, I have no idea) but it could not have been a result of the UN resolution.
The invasion was a war of choice. There was no threat to the USA or our allies. Most of our allies realized this and did not support the UN resolutions at the time. Many, including myself, did not support this war. Then the invasion and occupation happened. Now, since the US does occupy Iraq, the situation is different, and much more difficult and expensive than forecasted by the Bush administration. That said, international consensus and cooperation are required to improve the stability to the region.
It's in nobody's interest to derail the peace process as it would only worsen a bad situation. Now it's up to individual countries to decide the amount of help, military and financial, they will provide. But nothing's in the way, legaly, which is good.