-
UN
draft resolutions face-off
Gulf News
-
The United Kingdom, co-sponsored by the U.S. and Spain, has tabled a draft
resolution before the UN Security Council. At face value, the innocuous
tone of the draft could be misleading. All it does is remind members of
the previous resolutions passed by the Council and acknowledges the
present lack of co-operation from Iraq afforded to the UN weapons
inspectors. And, having done that, the draft requires members to
"remain seized of the matter."
What the draft represents, as tabled, is nothing more than a
progress report, somewhat similar to those given by Dr. Hans Blix, the UN
chief weapons inspector, and Dr. El Baradei, the head of the UN
International Atomic Energy Agency. However, accepting the draft at face
value would be a mistake. Probably its bland brevity is designed to
conceal the dangerous possibilities that could arise if it is passed. But
since the bureaucratic language will be studied and reflected upon by
other bureaucrats, it is doubtful that any nuances will evade them. For,
basically, what the draft is saying is, having passed 18 resolutions over
13 years against Iraq, take note of the latest situation.
Seemingly, there should be no objection from any of the
Security Council, since it is merely being asked to acknowledge what is
fact. Yet, in doing so, it would also be opening the door to the U.S. to
start a war against Iraq. American President George W. Bush has, all
along, claimed he does not consider a second resolution necessary, the
ability to wage war against Iraq, he alleges, exists in previous
resolutions if Iraq is found to be in material breach of them. However, to
assist British Prime Minister Tony Blair in persuading his public - and
possibly many of the American public as well - Bush has agreed to a second
resolution to confirm that action by force will be taken.
It is doubtful that a unanimous vote will be achieved. Not
only will the members see through the ploy, but three members, France,
Russia and Germany have proposed an alternative solution. Namely, to
increase the number of weapons inspectors in Iraq, set a timetable of up
to 120 days, by which, in stages, Iraq must conform to the requirements
laid down by the Security Council.
Both Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security
Council, have the power of veto on a resolution, thereby negating it. So
getting these countries on-side is very important to the U.S. and Britain.
Equally, China, another permanent member, has merely stated it does not
see need for an additional resolution at this time. At best, America and
Britain can hope for abstentions from these permanent members, thus
leaving them to "persuade" six other members to vote in favour -
only nine votes are needed for the resolution to become effective.
If this could happen, then both America and Britain will
likely argue that they had the moral majority in favour (on the Council),
if not a unanimous vote. However, in doing so, it would represent a very
damaging image of the UN, specifically of the Security Council, in that an
important decision like going to war against a member state, for whatever
reason, neither obtained unanimous consent of the Security Council, whose
purpose is to avoid war, or of the public at large, who remain unconvinced
of its necessity.