A rchive Date
[ 16-03-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.N ]
|
[Iraq war's first casualty: the UN?
In its last-ditch, almost laughable bid to preserve the world peace, the United Nations has shown it, too, is addicted to fighting
By LINDA WILLIAMSON - Toronto Sun
March 16, 2003
UNITED NATIONS - When you approach the UN complex from 47th Street in Manhattan, the first thing that strikes you is a mammoth statue of St. George slaying the mythical dragon.
Look a little closer and you'll see the dragon is constructed in part from old Russian and American ballistic missiles. The statue was a gift to the UN from the Soviet Union in 1990 and now stands as a monument to the end of the Cold War and, like so much else here, the ideal of world peace.
Last week's tense wrangling over Iraq, however, left relations between the U.S. and Russia (not to mention France) decidedly frosty again. And a different George, battling valiantly against terrorism and the scourge that is Saddam Hussein, has been accused of trying to slay the UN itself.
There's nothing like a week at the UN to turn you off world peace. Okay, that's a joke. But last week's excruciatingly circular debates at the UN Security Council were enough to try the patience of any saint, much less a president.
The issue before the 15-member council should have been a no-brainer. For 12 years, Iraq's dictator has flagrantly defied some 16 UN resolutions demanding he produce and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction.
Four months ago, after Bush urged that Saddam was a "grave and gathering danger" that could not be tolerated in a post-9/11 world, the Security Council unanimously demanded, yet again, that he disarm immediately or face "serious consequences."
But, as former president Bill Clinton might say, it all depends on what the definition of "serious consequences" is. For the U.S., Britain and Spain, it means military action. For France, Russia and Germany, it means... well, apparently it means lots and lots of weapons inspections and endless Security Council debates - anything but military action.
'Second resolution'
To clarify this mess, and to give Britain's Tony Blair, whose people are against going to war unless the UN backs it, the political fig leaf of UN approval, the U.S., Spain and Britain sought a so-called "second resolution" (actually the 17th in Iraq's case) that would explicitly authorize war if Saddam fails to comply this one last time.
Seems simple enough. But the resolution needs nine Security Council votes to pass. And as of now, it is more bitterly divided than ever.
The U.S., Britain and Spain, the three sponsors of the so-called "war resolution," have won only one sure additional vote so far: Bulgaria. France, Russia and China - all of whom have veto power, as do the U.S. and Britain - are all on the no side, along with Germany and (surprise) Syria. That leaves the six countries (now known as "the famous six" around here) of Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Chile, Mexico and Pakistan holding the balance of power, as it were.
Judging by the feverish meetings of the past few days (and nights), all seem to be genuinely searching for a compromise.
Canada's ambassador Paul Heinbecker was involved in the Group of Six's talks and has been optimistic. But when one of their diplomats says they essentially believe that letting Saddam off the hook is less bad than going to war - as one of them told a Washington paper last week - "compromise" starts to sound more like "sellout."
And consider this: Even if the best of all worlds prevails and one of the compromise plans wins the day, it might prolong this painful limbo for months as Iraq jumps through whatever hoops the council sets out for it to prove it has disarmed. Would we then face this same, never-ending debate each time Saddam fails a test? He could get by for years like that.
Alas, having invited the UN into the debate, the U.S. now finds itself hamstrung by its hopeless bickering, much of which has a nasty anti-American tone. (Even the foreign press here can be antagonistic. During a side briefing the other day on America's new multi-million-dollar commitment to fighting AIDS through UN agencies, one reporter demanded: "Hasn't the U.S. already alienated the rest of the world?")
In response, Americans - particularly New Yorkers, who tend to see the UN and its denizens as a bunch of freeloaders (or worse) - are getting snippy.
Anti-French stories
The papers are full of anti-French stories and urgings to boycott French and German wines in favour of Spanish and Australian ones (both latter countries are solid U.S. allies). The Sofitel hotel in Manhattan even took down its French flag for fear of vandalism or other reprisals.
And at the White House, even as the official talk is all about going "the extra mile" for diplomacy, staff are also reminding the world that a new UN resolution was never necessary - and that Bush is already working on a pre-war "ultimatum" speech that he'll deliver to Saddam himself, alone if necessary.
At one point last week, spokesman Ari Fleischer even mused about proceeding not through the UN but "another international body," whatever that means. (Best line of the week was from New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd: "What other international body? Salma Hayek?")
Still, analysts say, the historic, centuries-old ties between France and the U.S. will rebound and survive this bout of March madness, even if this crisis isn't amicably resolved. (Or if it's resolved by the U.S. and its allies pulling their resolution off the table and going home, after today's summit in the Azores, far away from the UN.) So will the UN, the thinking goes, because the U.S. will ultimately need the international community's help to keep the peace, even if it doesn't need it to make war.
Someday, another statue might grace these grounds, made of old al-Samoud missiles and other weapons renounced by Iraq. That's the kind of utopian idea this place is dedicated to. But you can't blame folks for occasionally fantasizing that it might be better for both if they were blown up first.
Linda Williamson is the Toronto Sun senior associate editor. She can be reached by e-mail at linda.williamson@tor.sunpub.com.
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|