THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Twilight of the UN

The Daily Telegraph ^ | March 8, 2003 | The Daily Telegraph

[MadIvan]

Before Hans Blix made his third report to the United Nations yesterday, the foreign ministers and diplomats were glad-handing each other as usual. But their cordiality could not dispel the impression that we were witnessing the twilight of the Security Council. Members have been wrestling with Saddam Hussein's defiance of their resolutions for 12 years. Yet still he co-operates only under duress - in this case, the presence of American and British troops on his doorstep.

At the present rate of progress, the task of destroying his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) could last indefinitely. That does not seem to bother many members of the council, who are more attached to process than effective outcome. The UN Charter confers on the council "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security". America and Britain have been trying to use that forum to deal with a regime that poses a threat to the stability of the Middle East and beyond. Yet they have been accused of rushing to war for pointing out that Iraq is failing to afford the immediate, unconditional and active co-operation that Resolution 1441, passed unanimously last November, enjoined; and that it should now face the "serious consequences" that the same resolution threatened for non-compliance.

Three of the permanent members of the council, China, France and Russia, have declared their opposition to a sequel to 1441 that would authorise the use of force. They will welcome Mr Blix's assurances yesterday that Iraq has begun to destroy its proscribed al-Samoud missiles, an action that the chief UN weapons inspector described as the first substantial measure of disarmament by Saddam since the mid-1990s; that to them is proof that the inspections are proving effective. They will have also been pleased to hear Mr Blix conclude that, with Iraqi co-operation, it would take months rather than weeks to complete the key remaining tasks; that coincides with their proposal to extend inspections well into the summer before deciding on military action.

They have, however, been overtaken by events. American and British forces in the Gulf are now poised to invade Iraq. On Thursday, George W Bush said that he would force a vote seeking UN support for such a campaign within days, while making clear that rejection would not alter his determination to disarm Saddam. "If we need to act, we will act and we really don't need the UN's approval to do so," he said. "When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission to do so." Last September, Mr Bush warned the UN that failure to enforce its will would condemn it to irrelevance. On Thursday, he signalled that his patience with the world body was running out. With the notable exceptions of Britain and Spain, the Security Council has failed to appreciate the devastating effect of September 11 on the world's remaining superpower. Jacques Chirac has opted for a debased form of Gaullist anti-Americanism, and Gerhard Schröder has espoused pacifism for domestic electoral advantage. Vladimir Putin, having boldly reached out to America after 9/11, has, unwisely if probably temporarily, allied himself with "old Europe".

The opponents of Washington and its allies set great store by the United Nations. Yet their penchant for procrastination could render that body weaker than ever. Yesterday, America, Britain and Spain presented a revised draft sequel to 1441, giving Iraq until March 17 to disarm, that is, to hand over all existing WMD and all documents regarding past destruction of such weapons. It is now up to the Security Council to show that it can fulfil the purpose for which it was created.

[Dog Gone]

Still, it would have been nice if he said it to their face.

As I recall, he did in their last meeting. This concept is not lost on them unless they are really really stupid.

I think they are gutless anti-Americans. There is a difference. Which is why I don't think they have the guts to veto the bill on Tuesday, as much as I would love them to...

[Semper Paratus]

I was dissapointed that Powell did not specifically put the Security Council on notice that if they refuse to act they will be irrelevent.

Bush did that in his November speech to the GA.

If the UN is too obtuse to remember that, tuff humus.

[MadIvan]

The closest I've seen is this:

SECURITY COUNCIL REACTION

Regards, Ivan

[Domestic Church]

" Powell did not specifically put the Security Council on notice"

If they can't read the writing on the wall, they don't deserve any forewarning. And why give them a heads up when they aren't doing anything in our interest? Let them fall into the East River or ship them out to Paris.

And let this be a lesson to our own *rats*.

[Dog Gone]

I've read the new resolution and the trap is even more neat than that.

If it passes, the Council must vote before March 17th that Iraq is in compliance or else it is deemed to have failed to have taken its final chance to comply.

And we'll wield the veto vote then.

[ggekko]

"19th century system of a balance of power, which was the only thing that worked for an extended period (30 years) anyway..."

It worked for 100 years from the Congress of Vienna until the start of WWI.

[Darling Lili]

They must be reading Freerepublic.com...we've all been talking this up for weeks.

Oh, without a doubt. I hear lots of influential people keep FR up and running on their laptops all day.

[Al B.]

Ivan, I happened to be near a TV when Jack Straw spoke. He was magnificent.

God bless the British, and thanks for the work you do here.

[Domestic Church]

The greatest winner will be those new eastern allies who have everything to gain in trading with us. Their people will reap benefits and their governments will gain political leverage. China may gain political leverage but the average Chinese will not be affected and the quality of their lifestyle will still be substandard.

[Mo1]

Thanks for the link .. :^)

[AntiGuv]

Just to be clear, I was limiting my 'winners' & 'losers' list to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The eastern Europeans will gain, regardless, from both the U.S. & the EU - although the latter (whatever form it eventually takes) is no doubt their ultimate destiny.

[ladyinred]

I love your posts Ivan! Thanks so much for keeping us informed from across the pond!

[Domestic Church]

Gotcha. Might this also splinter the EU though? Those growing eastern nations might want to link closer to the British pound and the US dollar than the Euro.I think a NATO rehash that includes eastern newbies will be the stronger organization. Then the EU will be in a squeeze play.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Some would say that the UN gambit was a waste. I would disagree. It has provided cover for the US and UK while they moved their assets into place.

However, I would suggest that this gambit has had broader collateral damage. It has driven damaged NATO considerably. It will result in the US abandoning its bases in Germany. It will slow the slide of the UK into the EU. It reveals the duplicity of Russia. In short, it will result in a fundamental realignment of Europe. When this is over, it will only enhance the power of the US and the prestige of the UK.

[patj]

the greatest ultimate loser will not be France, but rather Britain followed by Russia. The greatest ultimate winner will be China, then followed by the Franco-German axis...

Why would Britain be a loser? Wouldn't she be allied with the US? As well as all the other new Europe countries, Australia, and Spain? A shuffle isn't a loss.

[patj]

Ivan, are people in your country boycotting French goods?

[AntiGuv]

I've had that discussion with several people - both online as well as in person - and my reply, for what that's worth, is a resounding no. The EU will not splinter. In my experience, a lot of Americans perceive the EU as little more than a free-trade zone & a currency pact, but it is a far more deeply intensive & extensive institution than this. I would fully agree that all current indications suggest that its development will be stunted for a few years because of the Iraq diplomatic debacle, but it will not collapse or even regress. At most, it will go into 'cruise control' just as it always does when it encounters a setback.

Regarding the eastern European nations in particular, the benefits of EU membership far and away outstrip any potential benefits of nonmembership, and further outweigh the theoretical benefits of a (nonexistent, let's be clear) NAFTA sort of arrangement. As for power relations within the EU, Spain will probably gravitate right back into the Franco-German orbit after elections this next March. Britain cannot afford to remain out of the eurozone indefinitely. I don't know how, when, and under what circumstances that would happen, but they will eventually find themselves compelled to join (I could explain all the reasons why, but that's a much longer post). Indeed, the longer they stay out, the more it strengthens France & Germany's hand in the long run, because they can establish all the euro groundrules with minimized British influence.

The eastern newbies will give up neither their current generous levels of French & German foreign aid & investment nor the cascade of structural funds and convergence assistance that they will receive upon entry. BTW, this Saturday is the first test of these EU expansion schemes, when the Maltese vote on their accession referendum. With Malta generally regarded as the most 'euroskeptic' of the new entrants, if anyone rejects the EU, it'll near certainly be them.

[Domestic Church]

"It reveals the duplicity of Russia"

The more things changed the more they stayed the same. Perestroika was a charade while their socialism morphed into something more palatable to Capitolism. It is hard to figure if Russia's stance has more to do with painting us in a dark hue to gain leverage or to deflect attacks on their turf. I suspect both Russia and France are going to get hit when the extremist Islamics regroup.

[Lael]

It worked for 100 years from the Congress of Vienna until the start of WWI

Thats right...until 1914, when Free Trade triumphed over all other considerations. Only two nations on the Planet required Passports, Russia and Bulgaria. Even to this day, the percent of World Production devoted to Trade is only beginning to approach the levels of 1914.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire had by far the FEWEST men under Arms per capita. It had transmorgrafied into what the EC is trying to become today...the most successful Customs Union in the history of the "Civilized" world.

In 1896, the first Subway on the Continent opened, not in Paris or Berlin, but Budapest, the European city that had, for fifty years, had grown faster than any other even before compounding. Emperor Franz Josef, in that year, was expanding the Palace to almost 1000 rooms.

Across the Danube, in Pest, there arose a Parliament measured in Acres. All this, as a result of trade!

BUT, trade brings contact with differing cultures, and sometimes these rub each other in the wrong way.

When the Empire tried to expand to bring the benefits to a backwater provence of Bosnia, it rubbed Serbia the wrong way. Serbia armed assassins with bombs and 7.62 mm Browning Automatic pistols, and in 1914, the death of the Archduke in Sarajevo ended the 'free trade' association!

[BlessedByLiberty]

I want to express how impressed I am by your posts. Today, my daughter and I watched Jack Straw deliver deVillainyMan (as we refer to the French Minster) another Waterloo. The fact that deVillainyMan ran out of the SC meeting to blather with reporters is proof that Jack Straw hit his mark.

The press duplicity will not be forgotten either - they did not ask deVillainyMan one question regarding reports that France is aiding and abetting Iraq's regime with the acquistion of WMD's.

It is beyond reasonable to assert that the French/German alliance with the Iraqi regime is what will be the end of the U.N., not the United States. For those members of the U.N. who have continued to supply a murderer with munitions and an arsenol to harm hundreds of thousands of people will be revealed to the world when the United States of America once again, picks up the debris left by the policy of appeasement.