Yeah, China has been slack in NK, because of a domestic focus (we should all fear an externally proactive China, so I'm not complaining too much) and its short-sighted because SK is one of China's chief trading partners.
Just thinking about it some more, the last two times the US went into a country to do something about the local politics were in the cases of Somalia and Haiti. I don't recall any opposition back then from other countries.
Part of this mess is a total fuck-up on the public sell: a better public relations job, focussing more on human rights and less on thus far non-existent WMD would have won more global support.
Instead, we have Europeans accusing the US of an oil-grab, and these allegations of Europeans wanting to protect their contracts with Iraq.
(Public relations disaster - but what can you expect of an adminstration which has been club-footed in its unilateralism from the beginnning?)
I watched an interview with the foreign mnisters of Russia, France and Germany last night. The Russian foreign minister acknowledged that there seems to be litle anyone can do now to avert war, but both he and the French foreign minister said they would use their veto on a second resolution.
Because of this, I'm doubting there will be a second resolution: the US and UK will argue the first resolution gives them a legitimate reason for a war, and a second failed resolution would simply take away that legitimacy.
As it is, pinning legitimacy to the UN, and having such staunch opposition at the UN was a serious tactical blunder which the French and Russians have taken advantage of. The other blunder was to mis-estimate the mood in Turkey.
Setting aside the merits of the matter (human rights, prevention of proliferation of WMD, the uselessness of war as a tool of diplomacy, the effect of an invasion on the Middle east, the hypocrisy of wanting to enforce UN resolutions against Irraq but not Israel etc etc), the entire thing plays to the French advantage: it has effective rallied the world against the US, fulfilling its perceived role as a counter-balance.
George Bush's learning curve on the pitfalls of unilateralism is steep: I can't help but think that this is partly payback for Kyoto, and the International Criminal Court, leaving Bush and Blair in the position of embarking on an illegal or at least illegitimate war.
Legitimacy means a lot to people: for all its flaws, the UN is the place which can give its stamp of approval to a war, to render it "bridled aggression" rather than "unbridled aggression". A lot of polls have said that people the world over would support a UN-sanctioned war. The lack of the UN stamp of approval will mean attacks on US and UK embassies, boycotts of US and UK products, and threats against US and UK citizens.
Like I said, the entire thing is a fuck-up.
