| |
Gambles and gambits in the
UN
By Alexander Casella
NEW
YORK - As the sparring over the content of a new United
Nations Security Council resolution that would endorse a
US intervention in Iraq proceeds in the shadows of the
labyrinth of power politics, diplomatic observers in New
York believe that the scenarios that will gel are now
clearly identified.
The US and Britain are
likely to seek a Security Council vote next week on
their draft resolution condemning Iraq and opening the
way to war. US Ambassador to the United Nations John
Negroponte says he expects a vote "quite soon" after
chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix delivers another
report to the Security Council on Friday.
The
ongoing consensus is that the overriding issue is not so
much the disarming of Iraq but rather the notion of
regime change. Indeed, the current belief is that Saddam
Hussein can disarm to his heart's content; this will not
satisfy Washington or preempt a US intervention.
What the administration of US President George W
Bush has set its eyes on is a re-drawing of the map of
the Middle East, an endeavor that will inevitably entail
installing a new regime in Baghdad. The more far-fetched
version of such a redrawing, according to informed
sources, would provide for part of southern Iraq,
including some oil resources, to be given to the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the only Arab state in the
area - and one with close ties to the United Kingdom and
the United States - that has no oil reserves of its own.
In exchange, Jordan would give up some of its
present territory as a contribution to the creation of a
Palestinian state. The rest of Iraq would be divided
into three autonomous entities, which would include the
Shi'ites in the south, Baghdad in the center and a
northern Kurdistan state. But whatever Washington may
have in mind for the region, the sine qua non is
Saddam's removal.
With the Iraqi dictator giving
no indication that he might chose exile over war, a
military conflict seems unavoidable; the only question
is whether it will be undertaken with or without UN
endorsement. There are two requirements for a resolution
to be adopted by the UN Security Council. It must obtain
a minimum of nine votes from its 15 members, and none of
the five permanent members must vote against, given that
a negative vote is equal to a veto.
At present,
the US is certain of at least four votes, namely its own
and those of the UK, Spain and Bulgaria. China, France
and Russia, the other three permanent members, have
indicated their opposition to the use of force. Two
non-permanent members, Germany and Syria, have done
likewise. As for the remaining six non-permanent
members, namely Mexico, Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea
and Pakistan, they are still dithering. With China,
France and Russia unlikely to change their vote to a
Yes, the only chance of the US obtaining a majority of
nine votes is for Washington to exert enough pressure on
at least five of the undecided non-permanent members so
as to obtain their support. As of today, there is a fair
chance that the US will not be able to muster nine votes
in its favor.
If this scenario were to prevail
it would probably result in four votes for a US
resolution, one against (Syria) and 10 abstentions,
namely those of the three permanent members and of the
seven remaining non-permanent members. While such an
outcome would be a major slap in the face for the United
States, it would get China, France and Russia off the
hook by giving them an excuse for not exercising their
right of veto and thus directly confronting Washington.
This, for the not-so-courageous French and Russians,
would be an ideal outcome.
The situation would
become far more complicated were the United States to
succeed in arm-twisting enough of the non-permanent
members to obtain the required nine votes. Were this to
occur, the final word would then rest with China, France
and Russia, who would have to choose with either
publicly backing down or precipitating a crisis with
Washington by exercising their right of veto.
Of
the three, China, by far, is the less exposed. While
Beijing has expressed its disapproval of the use of
force, it has never even hinted that it would veto a US
resolution. Indeed, during its whole tenure in the UN,
China has only used its right of veto twice, and this
exclusively on issues relating to Taiwan. Diplomatic
sources in New York confirm that on the issue of Iraq,
China's position will be guided exclusively by pragmatic
considerations. With 40 percent of the country's oil
consumption imported from the Middle East, the last
thing China wants to see is an increase of the price of
oil or a disruption of its supplies. Thus, ultimately,
China will look favorably on any US attempt to introduce
same stability, albeit by force, in the oil-producing
countries of the Middle East.
The need for China
to work closely with the US regarding its oil supply as
opposed to other potential sources became even more
apparent to Beijing this January. In the course of its
privatization policy, the Russian government opened bids
for the sale of the country's seventh-largest oil
company, Vlavnevt. With the company assessed at US$3
billion, China won the auction with a bid of $3.7
billion. However, with the sale on the point of being
finalized, the Russian parliament, the Duma, rushed
through a bill prohibiting the sale of oil companies to
foreigners. Ultimately, Vlavnevt was sold to a Russian
consortium for $1.1 billion.
According to
informed sources, the incident confirmed China's
suspicions that Russia is not a reliable partner and
that Beijing's interests today command that it not
unnecessarily antagonize the United States. The result
should be that China, unless its direct interests are at
stake, will not take it on itself to veto a US
resolution and will ultimately choose to abstain.
The choice will be far more difficult for France
and Russia, both of whom have publicly taken a far
stronger stand than China in opposing a US intervention
in Iraq. While the issue as to whether either of them,
or both, will veto a UN resolution authorizing the use
of force in Iraq is academic, given that Washington has
made it clear that it will proceed whatever the outcome
at the Security Council, the damage that such a veto
will do to their relations with the United States far
outweighs any benefit that they might derive elsewhere
from it.
Ultimately, the real test will be the
measure of success that the US will achieve if and when
it moves against Iraq. As of now, all that Washington
has achieved is to split Europe badly and put in
question the very existence of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
