|
On to the U.N.
With Thursday's polls showing national approval for a war resolution at 72 to 17 percent
and approval of President Bush at 66 to 21, the House voted for the administration's negotiated position 296 to
133 and the Senate passed an appropriate procedural vote 75 to 25, thereby silencing Sen. Robert Byrd's (D-WV)
filibuster. Having obtained overwhelming approval from Congress, the Bush administration moves on to the United
Nations.
In New York the public debate will divide between concern over the demise of United Nations influence and the chance
to turn the tide against despotism in the wider Middle East. The public debate, however, means little. While the
Left likes to pass off the United Nations as a debating society for the international community, it is not. It
is an auction gallery where the price of a vote is negotiated bilaterally. The question of the day is "How
much will the United States pay for being allowed to escape the accusation of unilateralism?" There are four
major trophies to be auctioned off.
The United Nations. The 191 members of the United Nations create a curiosity. The only non-member is the
17th largest economy on the earth - Taiwan, population 23 million. Surely, the mystical "international community"
is not the General Assembly. A bit less than half of the member nations have a semblance of a democracy and the
other half are some form or another of single party or single person rule. They produce a collective Tower of Babel,
noted almost solely for its inability to act. The General Assembly, columnist James Lileks says, is the epicenter
of world cynicism, standing for the ideal of unanimous impotence.
How about the Security Council then? It has 15 members, ten elected and five permanent with powers of the veto
stemming, except for China, from their position as a world power in 1945. The elected ten have not even been consulted
on the current resolution. It is likely that a majority of them would oppose any U.S. resolution for reasons of
self interest in their neighborhoods. They are: Bulgaria, Columbia, Norway, Singapore, Cameroon, Guinea, Ireland,
Mauritius, Mexico and Syria. Our good friend Germany, is not on the Council. It has, however, just announced an
investigation of the sale to Iraq of German machine tools used to make long range artillery capable of firing chemical
weapons at troops 35 miles away.
Then there is the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan who is busy deliberately installing weakened and ancient procedures
about inspections that are guaranteed to preserve Saddam for another year. The inspection regime Annan advocates
would take at least seven months to enact and thereby put off any possible invasion of Iraq until next fall. His
inspection teams are U.N. employees, not representatives of nations as before. Their access to intelligence reports
is therefore more limited than the previous teams. The current oil-for-food administrative fee is the largest single
source of income for the United Nations. The self-interest of the United Nations is to maintain the income and
influence from the oil-for-food sanction and thus preserve Saddam through tolerance of bureaucratic delay.
China. Since 1986, China has followed a program to develop post-nuclear weapons which they define as: superweapons
able to annihilate the West including all of its means of retaliation, according to author Lev Navrozov. China's
veto price is continued inattention to what they are doing. A U.S. tied down in the Middle East suits them just
fine. The more the United States is absorbed, the less attention it will pay to the Chinese immigrants in the Panama
Canal Zone, the port development in the Caribbean and chokepoints elsewhere, the pressure on Indonesia and the
grip tightening in Hong Kong, Taiwan and even North Korea. Their deal is simple - we will shut up if you will shut
up.
Russia. Russia has a far bigger problem then the media generally describes. It is far deeper than the $10
billion owed to Russian companies or even the illusive $40 billion being offered in future contracts. The only
reason Russia has a recovering economy today is the OPEC decision in 1999 to reduce oil supply. A good 45-50 percent
of the nation's foreign exchange is earned from the oil and gas industry. Never an efficient producer, Russia needs
to see $18 a barrel. The current price is $29. A free flowing Iraq, busting OPEC quotas with three times today's
oil production, could drive the price towards $10 a barrel. A financial hit on their recovering economy caused
by cheap oil is a greater worry than lost Iraqi business.
The hardliners that oppose Putin are already upset about a U.S. presence in Central Asia, viewing it as a strategic
setback. How much more would they hate a U.S. presence in the Middle East? Last week, Sergei Markov of the Institute
of Political Studies in Moscow, told his audience that President Putin had pledged to protect Russian interests
in Iraq regardless of the regime. He expressed doubts that Russia would ever see either their $10 billion currently
owed nor the $40 billion future contracts Saddam promised. Russia's veto price is the best future oil deal possible
with the United States. The first Russian-US oil summit was held in Houston last week Pipelines and ports were
on the agenda with the idea of increasing American dependence on Russian oil and gas by becoming a stable supplier
more reliable than the Saudi's. That's a prize for Russia that is worth a Security Council abstention.
France. France's ability to project military power is the least of all the permanent members of the Security
Council. It has a large Arab population. Its symbiotic relationship with Iran is analogous to the U.S. relationship
with Saudi Arabia and so they want to save the ayatollahs. France has a demonstrated record throughout its history
of appeasement leading to capitulation, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. It purports to wield its veto for all
of Europe. To protect business contacts and other commercial favors in Iran and Iraq, France has heavily supported
the Palestinians and has been a vocal opponent of Israel. Wanting to appease somebody but not sure of who, France
proposes a fig leaf - the two resolution strategy.
The French proposal is to have two U.N. resolutions - one for now and one for later. The first would authorize
an inspection regime and the second would decide on the use of military force. The protection this provides Saddam
is obvious. The debate on whether to pass the second resolution will never be resolved. Those opposed to United
States action will endlessly debate whether Saddam has violated the inspection enough to go to war or whether he
deserves another chance, a further adjustment or just a little more time.
Speaking at a French parliamentary debate this week, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said France
would not use its Security Council veto because it would deprive France of its influence. The bottom line is they
didn't want to be shut out of the spoils of victory.
Prompt Action. The weather in Iraq favors the offense between now and March and favors the defense from
April to September. The heat debilitates soldiers in chemical suits during the Iraqi summer. The U.S. acts quickly
or not for a year. For the United Nations, the question is: will the United States proceed through the U.N. or
through bilateral agreements with friends? For the domestic electorate, the question of the month is what political
party do they want in charge during wartime?
|
