A Security Council on the Run

With its vaguely worded "second resolution" proposal for the UN Security Council, the United States is showing contempt for the UN and laying down a humiliating dare to any Council members who would defy it. If and when it is passed, it will also hand Washington's only real ally, Tony Blair, an opening to claim UN authorization for attacking Iraq -- although the proposed wording does no such thing.

Neither did the previous UN resolutions, by the way. The rest of the world never believed that either 687 (passed after the Gulf War) or the more recent 1441 gave the U.S. and the UK a right to attack Iraq. Before resolution 1441 was passed, the other members successfully insisted there should be another meeting of the Council to determine whether or not Iraq had culpably failed to cooperate with the UN inspectors. It was why the French at the time insisted there would have to be a second resolution to authorize force, since existing resolutions did not do so.

But the Anglo-American draft is certainly not the second resolution that Paris asked for. It does not specifically authorize force, nor indeed mention it. It merely notes that "Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution." The statement concludes that the Security Council "acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations, decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441."

There is no explicit reference to the "serious consequences" threatened in 1441, let alone a definition of what they would be, or who is authorized to deliver these consequences. The wording leaves a lot of room for creative ambiguity, allowing Tony Blair to innocently describe the resolution as a "last push for peace."

The U.S. and the UK think they can browbeat Council members into supporting the resolution by saying it is not a war resolution, then use it as a carte blanche to start the war. Its allusive and elusive wording derives from Washington's insistence it can act under powers granted in the cease-fire resolution 687 passed after the Gulf War and that, in matters of "national interest," it has the right to do as it pleases.

The fate of the resolution is not going to change Washington's plans to attack Iraq. The U.S. and the UK have both told the Security Council they are going ahead with the war irrespective of what its members say. According to one diplomat quoted in the Washington Post, the U.S. Administration has told the other states, "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the Council will go along with it or not."

There is, of course, the matter of disposing of the other alternatives on the council's table. The counterproposal made by France, Germany and Russia says, "(T)he military option should only be a last resort. So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled: While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field." It says that there should be added efforts to reach a peaceful solution.

The counter-initiative does not preclude the use of force against Iraq, but effectively puts it on the backburner until mid-summer, when it is generally considered to be too hot to fight. Bush, unfortunately, is prepared to follow the dictates of the weather rather than heed the antiwar opinions of much of the rest of the world, as well as the pro-UN caution expressed by a majority of Americans.

The Canadian proposal, floated in the open Security Council debate a week ago is actually far more efficient than the French one, in every sense. It proposes that the inspectors set up a series of benchmarks the Iraqis have to meet, with a tight deadline set around the end of March. Failure to meet these assigned goals would trigger serious consequences.