IRAQ-UN: Not if, but who and when

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Att.Editors: The following item is by the United Arab Emirates news agency (WAM)

ABU DHABI, Mar 14 2003 (IPS) - A United Arab Emirates (UAE) newspaper today commented on the diplomatic efforts being exerted inside and outside the premises of the UN for a UN Security Council majority to wage or oppose war on Iraq.

Commenting editorially on the issue, the Dubai-based ‘Gulf News’ said: – America is pressing for an early start to war on Iraq. France and Russia say they will veto any UN resolution that infers war as being the outcome for failure of Iraq to comply.

ôBritain vacillates between the America and European position, trying to keep both parties ‘on-side’ – although the prospects of any merging of minds appear dimmer by the passing hour.

ôIt is obvious to all that America, France and Russia have dug themselves into a hole difficult to scramble out of – that is, assuming they want to.

ôFor Russia and France are perfectly happy to let the status quo persist, relying on the ability of the UN weapons inspectors to bring Iraq to account, disregarding the days that pass, and the greater difficulties that will be faced by any allied powers should it come to a war.

ôBut then, neither Russia nor France want a war to take place. Both are more interested in trying to resolve the present problems peaceably, in the hope it will augur well for them in the future, not only with Iraq but also in the region.

ôThis is not to ignore their concern for the humanitarian aspects of war, merely an appreciation that underlying their stance is a more commercial consideration.

ôAmerica, on the other hand, besides already delegating some of the restructuring of Iraq to major American construction companies, has made no secret of its anxiety to get on with the battle, which optimists believe will last ‘only a matter of days’.

ôThe Bush administration and its advisors see no need to get a second UN resolution passed by the Security Council, but do accede it would benefit their staunchest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

ôThe American stance is, that while it would be ‘nice’ to get a second resolution, it is not essential since Resolution 1441 and previous UN resolutions going back over a decade, give the UN sufficient authority to go to war.

ôThe problem arises with the British. Blair has all along said a second resolution is necessary. It will, he has said, confirm the unanimity of the Security Council in going to war against another member of the UN.

ôHowever, it is very apparent that a second resolution will not achieve a unanimous vote of approval. What Britain and America are now hoping for is that ‘moral authority’ might be achieved if a majority vote can be obtained.

ôYet if any of the permanent members vetoes the bill, it ceases to exist and, as such, any action taken thereafter could be considered as illegal. It is this dilemma that is causing such heartache and burning of midnight oil in the UN offices.

ôIf there is no second resolution, then Blair has lost much of the ground he prepared for battle against Iraq. He has already lost the support of the majority of the British people and many of his political party, who are threatening their resignations.

ôSo Blair will have to decide whether to continue to support the Bush administration, and possibly the respect of the British public and likely another term in office, or whether to pull out the military forces already sent to the region.

ôThe argument for not presenting a second resolution to the Security Council relies on the premise that if there are to be vetoes – France and Russia – then it is better not to put it to the test and so invalidate any action that America and Britain (or America alone) may take.

ôThus, while the arguments continue in the UN headquarters on the niceties of bureaucratic language, the reality on the ground is that there will be war against Iraq. It is merely a question of who joins America – and when," the paper questioned.