THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Twilight of the UN

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.

Because, just as the declining power of France gains disproportionate international influence from its UN Security Council status, so too does the declining power of Britain gain similar enhancement.

Before I get to that, let me dispense with Spain & Italy (which you didn't mention). It's difficult not to objectively regard Spain's current foreign policy stance as an aberration, attributable to nothing more than Aznar's leadership. His pro-American position regarding Iraq is starkly unpopular in Europe and his party is now trailing the opposition Socialists for the first time since the last election. Spain has elections coming up in March, 2004. Even assuming Aznar's party manages to hold on - a dubious proposition at the moment - his successor (Aznar says he will not stand for office again) is very likely to realign himself firmly with France & Germany.

Italy, even more so than Spain, has traditionally been a strong partner in the Franco-German vision for a united Europe. Much like the Spanish situation, the current Italian stance has been almost entirely a product of Berlusconi's personal inclinations, and even at that a weak distancing. In other affairs, Berlusconi has been working as closely as ever with Chirac and Schröder toward advancing their vision of Europe; he has also stated recently that the U.S. must secure a second UN resolution authorizing war in Iraq. Much like a couple other states usually close to the Franco-German core, Italy's actions seem more driven by difficulty coming to terms with the transatlantic rift, rather than any genuinely resilient realignment away from France & Germany.

So, back to Britain. For a variety of reasons - fully acknowledged by Tony Blair, I might add - Britain cannot afford to remain forever outside the eurozone. The details are rather lengthy and in themselves peripheral to this topic (if nothing else, then let's just say that's my view of things). Britain will be compelled to make a choice, sooner or later, between staying right outside the EU door or fully integrating within the eurozone. Indeed, that's Blair's uppermost priority once this Iraq situation has been resolved, which he by every account intends to focus the remainder of his administration upon.

Now, if you say that the Security Council will be consigned to history, the next step is to look at where, precisely, states will then seek international stature. In particular, when making a relative assessment such as that between France and Britain (both declining powers in the grand scheme) then clearly the most immediate forum is the European Union. First of all, France has both a larger absolute economy and a greater population than Britain (many have lately lost sight of the fact that France is the 4th largest economy in the world). When combining France and Germany (the 3rd largest economy) the British economy isn't even in the ballpark, either by population or economic leverage.

Otherwise, one must consider the immediate aftermath of a resolution to the Iraqi situation; the impact on Blair's political viability. More likely than not, a successful campaign will invigorate his political capital, which he'll turn right around and invest into ushering Britain into the eurozone. On the off-chance that his position is crippled, then there's every likelihood that his Labor successor will prove far more favorable to the EU, not less so. Finally, a long-range enhancement of the EU at the expense of the UN in the geopolitical order most elevates the stature of Germany, over the long-run.

In short, by losing its position at the UN, Britain loses one of the two primary pillars of its international standing. The other is its "special relationship" with the U.S., but it's important not to overemphasize the long-range significance of that. First of all, as already stated, a Labor successor to Blair is likely to prove closer to the Continent and far more distant from America than has Blair. Secondly, one way or another, the current relative emphasis on military affairs will get resolved (for better or worse) at which point attention will swing rapidly back to economic orderings. Third, its important, as I already alluded toward, not to overlook the impact of a Germany unleashed from NATO & the EU.

But, that's a discussion for another thread, so I'll stop here (I think I'm beginning to ramble somewhat.. ;)

Yes, that's correct. I don't think that the current geopolitical order is such that even those six nations you mentioned could agree on the structure of a replacement organization for the United Nations. Keep in mind that both the League of Nations & the UN were formed in the aftermath of devastating conflagrations that united the victors in both purpose and exhaustion. Such circumstances don't exist at the present time.

To be honest, for all this talk of the twilight of the UN, I don't really think it's going anywhere. The UN will probably just get consigned to the backwater of international affairs - such as they are - with economic institutions like the IMF, GATT, World Bank, and G-8 rising in prominence. The United States will conduct military operations on the basis of bilateral, coalition agreements as appropriate for the given conflict. Other nations will modify their military positioning accordingly. In time, many of these global hotspots will get resolved some way or another (hopefully without major power armed conflicts).

The United Nations probably won't get reformed in any meaningful way until the European Union coalesces into some more or less genuinely federalized structure. Until then, it'll focus on those humanitarian & cultural missions about which there's still broad consensus. Essentially, the restoration of its pre-1991 Cold War irrelevance is at hand. Serious diplomatic exchanges will shift elsewhere, during the interim; how exactly, it's still too early to state for certain.

The weakest nations stand to lose the most if the UN eventually becomes a museum in the Hague. Countries like the US, the UK and even France have sufficient national power to safeguard their interests in a chaotic world. In a lawless town, the fastest guns can still walk the streets in comparative safety. It's the delivery boy and the little old lady who gets short shrift.

Those who believe who prefer the demise of the UN to the enhancement of American power through the UN will get the worst of both worlds. The world talking shop in which they had some status will cease to exist and the United States will be free to operate without reference to any pre-existing institutional arrangements. It's the same mistake that unskilled laborers make when they shut down a firm thinking that Mr. Big will be impoverished. They'll be out of a job and impoverished while Mr. Big gets to build another factory in a better industry somewhere else.

But France doesn't mind this, as long as it gets to pick up some of the debris. After all, France glories in being able to dominate the impoverished African countries it calls the Francophile zone and play the big bwana in these pathetic places -- which it keeps pathetic, expressly for the purpose. If France can't be King of the World, it is happy to be the emperor of its own hobo court. And it's looking for a few more members.

I predict France will veto. And this is why.

Among other things, this entire circus at the UN has been an attempt to control the US, to put a limit on its power. While it's been a cynical, maniacal, corrupt, and evil attempt to keep Hussein in power and continue to profit from relationships with him, the situation has also been used by the Axis of Weasels to beat the US into submission. But if these clowns on the SC have the slightest modicum of awareness, they have come to the realization by this point that Bush is NOT bluffing about going into Iraq. And they understand that if the UN tells us we can't go into Iraq, and we do anyway, then it's obvious that the UN cannot control the US or limit its power. From here, they must draw the conclusion that if the UN survives in any shape after that, it survives in a role subservient to the US. Never again can the UN tell us what we can or cannot do. It can only follow where we lead, not the other way around.

In that event, the Axis of Weasels will not want the UN to continue, if the UN cannot control the US and the US calls the shots. So they will destroy the UN themselves. They have gambled everything to enslave the US to their will through the UN... but they overplayed their hand. If the US refuses to be enslaved, then they'd rather there be no UN at all than a UN subservient to the US. So the weasels will kill the UN as a scorched-earth tactic, cut their losses, sever all ties with the US, and devote their energy to building up the EU as best they can under the circumstances.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.