 Saddam defeats U.S. at the UN; Now it's time for him to go
UNITED NATIONS Ñ Political chaos and diplomatic disequilibrium have characterized these anguished days in the UN Security Council. As American and British diplomats press for retooling and refining their draft resolution on Iraqi disarmament, the entire exercise became shrouded by the bluntly threatened vetoes of France and Russia. A deep political funk pervades the corridors of diplomacy. And while President George W. Bush frantically lobbied leaders to swing uncommitted votes, from Africa to Mexico, the damoclean sword of a veto, makes the draft resolution stillborn.
The issue now is basically academic Ñ a chance to grasp a diplomatic fig-leaf in spite of what promises to be a political pie in the face from a Franco/Russian veto.
On the one hand, the President was smart to push to the second resolution to attempt to broaden support for the looming war with Saddam and as importantly to provide needed political cover for British Prime Minister Tony Blair who is facing trials by fire in his own Parliament and in the court of public opinion. Thus the second draft resolution Ñ now ricocheting around for the last few weeks has been tabled albeit with little support beyond its sponsors Britain, the U.S. and Spain.
BritainÕs latest benchmark steps for SaddamÕs disarmament were quickly dismissed by the Quai DÕOrsay in Paris. BritainÕs Downing Street accused France of Òpoisoning the diplomatic process at the UN.Ó It comes down to timing: allowing Saddam yet more time to disarm (as if 12 years have not been enough), or finally setting a deadline.
In the midst of deliberations, Secretary of State Powell visited the Council only to be rebuffed repeatedly, first after his Feb 5th ÒTell All Iraq Expose,Ó then what I call the St. ValentineÕs Day massacre when French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin unsheathed his diplomatic stiletto, followed by an early March Blix Weapons Report when the Secretary of State was again sandbagged by France, Russia, and Germany. Powell has suffered his criticism well but one wonders his point in being a punching bag?
Washington assiduously courted Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan to convince Òswing votesÓ get the necessary nine for the resolution to pass. The strategic bottom line remains that the inevitable war to disarm Saddam is being dangerously delayed by the diplomatic dilly-dallying while American and British forces in the field are being endangered in their mission by the approach of General Sandstorm.
The Security Council option was fine but the windows of opportunity (early March was the last one) have been slammed shut while we whittled away our time trying to sway and swoon the Foreign Ministry in Conakry, Guinea to give American and British forces the benediction so as to protect our national interests.
America plays guignol to the political pique of Paris, the socialist smugness of Berlin, and the still-spinning weathervanes over Moscow.
Interestingly RussiaÕs retro/Soviet-style Foreign Minister Ivan Ivanov threatens to say ÒNyetÓ and veto our resolution. President Vladimir Putin may not be so rash.
ÒFor Putin, a tough stance for Russia is a risky plan,Ó warns the Moscow Times, ÒIt is unlikely Bush will step down from his threats to wage war against IraqÉwithout Russian approval of U.S. military action, U.S. officials have made it clear Russia risks being locked out of any role in a post-Hussein Iraq, including developing oil fields.Ó
Still FranceÕs President Jacques Chirac has near universal domestic support to wield the veto; from the socialist left to Le PenÕs rightist National Front saying that France should have had the honor to cast its veto before Russia!
While France has successfully defeated this resolution, the collateral political damage to Paris should not be underestimated. This is not a passing cloud.
Washington presses for a Òmoral victoryÓ through winning five of the six uncommitted votes on the Council Ñ a costly game to achieve a pyrrhic political victory Ñ would then anyway be defeated by the veto.
SpainÕs Foreign Minister Ana Palacio advised that withdrawing the resolution may actually be wiser. In other words no vote, no veto, no embarrassment. This would in effect save the Anglo/American/Spanish draft from formal defeat, would avoid the humiliation of the loss, and essentially change the playing field.
This entire charade has done serious political damage to trans-Atlantic relations, the standing of the UN Security Council, and has played into the hands of Saddam. Washington would be well advised to save further embarrassment and focus on the mission Ñ the liberation of Iraq from Saddam.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense
issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
See current edition
of
   |
