| |
A fig leaf short of a
war?
By Thalif Deen
NEW YORK
- After nearly seven weeks of closed-door negotiations,
the 15-member UN Security Council is heading for a final
decision this week on a resolution that could trigger a
US military attack on Iraq.
The United States,
which has toned down its belligerent war rhetoric, is
expected to agree to one of the key demands made by
Russia, China and France, which would force Washington
to return to the Security Council before it could launch
an attack on Baghdad. But the resolution is also
expected to vaguely warn Iraq that any "material breach"
of its obligations could result in military action.
The resolution could be adopted only with at
least nine affirmative votes and no vetoes. The United
States, Britain, Russia, China and France have veto
power. The 10 non-permanent members - Ireland, Mexico,
Colombia, Mauritius, Syria, Singapore, Bulgaria, Guinea,
Cameroon and Norway - have voting powers but no vetoes.
There is widespread speculation in UN corridors
that the resolution, which is co-sponsored by the United
States and Britain, could garner eight votes from
non-permanent members, with the co-sponsors providing an
additional two. If, as expected, Russia, China and
France reach a compromise and abstain from voting, the
resolution will be interpreted as being politically weak
because it will not have the backing of three of the big
powers in the Security Council.
Chris Toensing,
editor of the Washington-based Middle East Report, told
IPS that "the likely 'compromise' will leave room for
dispute - the United States will claim that the
resolution authorizes force, while France may claim that
it does not".
Toensing also said that one of the
deepest factors pushing the Security Council to
"compromise" is the fear that the United States will act
alone in the absence of a resolution - the other member
states would rather be on the inside looking out. "But
at least the short-term effect of the Iraq crisis may be
to strengthen views of the United Nations as a tool for
great power designs - hurting the institution's
credibility, if not its relevancy," he said.
According to diplomats, the most ambiguous
phrase in the resolution is the one that implicitly
warns Iraq that any "material breach" of its past
obligations could justify military action by the United
States. US Secretary of State Colin Powell said last
week that the United States would continue to keep its
military options open because Washington did not want a
resolution that would virtually "handcuff" President
George W Bush from doing what he felt was necessary to
defend the United States and its interests in the world.
Jason Mark of the San Francisco-based
international human rights group Global Exchange argues
that a US invasion of Iraq without a clear mandate from
the Security Council would represent a major assault on
the rule of law. "The United Nations should have the
final say, not the White House," Mark told IPS. "Does
this 'handcuff' the United States? Yes. That is
precisely the point of the UN and the Security Council
veto system: to restrain unilateral actions and preserve
international stability."
Mark points out that
the White House's bellicosity presents a greater threat
to the UN's relevancy than does Iraq's weapons program.
"We fear that if the United States goes ahead and
attacks Iraq anyway, without UN approval, it will
cripple the institution. If the United States uses force
in clear disregard to the United Nations, the UN's
credibility and its relevancy will be destroyed," he
added.
Francis Boyle, professor of international
law at the University of Illinois College of Law, said
that the Bush administration was working very hard to
get any type of "legal fig leaf" from the Security
Council that it could use in the United States and
around the world to justify its pre-planned aggression
against Iraq. "Without such a Security Council fig leaf,
it will be obvious to the entire world and even to the
American people that this attack is raw, naked, brutal
aggression - just like what Hitler did to Poland in
1939, starting World War II. And could this be the start
of World War III?" he asked.
If the Security
Council gives the Bush administration this legal fig
leaf for its pre-planned aggression, it will prove its
own legal and moral bankruptcy - "just like what
happened to the League of Nations when it refused to
confront aggression by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy",
Boyle added.
Mark Lance, associate professor of
justice and peace at Georgetown University, said that
"many powerful forces in the United States, including
many in the military and many major capitalists, seem to
oppose a war. And of course large sectors of the public
do," he added. "The administration obviously thinks that
a belligerent tone is the best way to go no matter what
happens."
Although the resolution implicitly
threatens military action against Iraq if it refuses to
cooperate with UN arms inspectors searching for weapons
of mass destruction, the US has also hinted that the
adoption of the resolution would not necessarily lead to
war. "This resolution is not an attempt by the United
States to seek an excuse for going to war," Ambassador
James Cunningham, the US deputy permanent representative
to the United Nations, said. "It is an attempt to send a
clear message to Iraq and to get a good inspection
regime under way."
(Inter Press Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
