>>War Diary: Monday, March 10, 2003
STRATFOR ^ | Mar 09, 2003 | Staff
Posted on 03/10/2003 8:55 AM EST by Axion
War Diary: Monday, March 10, 2003
Mar 09, 2003
March 9 was a day of intense maneuvering over the Security Council vote that now is expected to occur on March 10 or 11. As we
pointed out several weeks ago, the United States had eight shaky votes in its bag. It needs one more, and the likely vote is Guinea. However, the French foreign minister made an emergency trip to Africa to visit Cameroon, Angola and Guinea -- three critical countries in the vote -- in an effort either to convince or strip them from the American camp or to keep them in the French camp.
One of the most fascinating things to observe is the intensity of the French effort. We are reminded of U.S.-Soviet confrontations in the Security Council to find a comparison to the level of effort and passion France is devoting to the subject. The United States and France now are confronting each other over this issue as if they were -- to all intents and purposes -- enemies. France is doing more than simply opposing Washington; it is passionately trying to defeat the United States.
Should Washington be able to pull together nine votes, the question of veto will arise. The Chinese clearly are not in favor of the U.S. resolution, but they will not veto. Their relationship to the United States is too important to them to risk it over what is, ultimately, a peripheral issue. The solidity of the Russians in joining France in a veto is also at risk, as their position started to waver on March 9. Russian Deputy Foreign Minster Yuri Fedotov said that while Russia opposes unilateral military action, "We are striving to find a common language with the United States, England and other countries. We have never tried to inflame the conflict." It appeared that the conflict he was referring to had to do with the Franco-American war and not to the U.S.-Iraq war. Ultimately, Russia does not want to be in complete opposition to the United States. It needs support from Washington on a range of issues including Chechnya, and France and Germany are no substitutes.
That means there is a chance, if the French mission to Africa fails to nail down the number of votes needed to oppose Washington, that the United States could come into the March 11 vote with nine votes and abstentions from Russia and China. That would leave France in the position of being the sole veto, holding a minority position. This is the last thing that France wants to do, because of its relations to Europe.
The entire point of this enterprise, geopolitically, was to create a situation in which Europe, as a bloc dominated by France with Germany, would take a stand against the United States. This would have created the foundation of a European entity in foreign policy. That hasn't happened. In fact, Paris has found itself facing a revolt among European nations.
France is supported by Germany, Belgium and most of Scandinavia. The United States is supported by Britain, Portugal, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and nine former communist countries (the Czech position now being ambiguous). While the media has constantly spoken of Washington as being isolated, the fact is most European governments are aligned with the United States -- public opinion is not, but most of these leaders are not suicidal and therefore assume that public opinion will shift over time. The reason for the lack of support in Europe has little to do with Iraq. It has a great deal to do with European fear of a French-dominated Europe. In the final analysis, in much of Europe, the United States is seen as much less threatening than France.
Washington is therefore trying to maneuver Paris into a very difficult choice -- casting an isolated veto that will increase its alienation in Europe. It is certainly not clear that the United States can do this. What is going on now in the Security Council is old-fashioned horse trading on issues having nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq. The fact of the matter is that the United States has enormous advantages over France in that sort of conflict. Paris, going to the limit on this, would not enhance its position as the leader in Europe. For that reason it badly needs (a) Washington to not get the nine votes, and (b) Russia to join in the veto. Neither is certain tonight.
The risk had better pay off for the United States. There were dust storms already in Kuwait this weekend. The temperatures in the south have reached the mid-eighties and around Baghdad they've moved into the low eighties. There will be a full moon around March 17. The United States has assumed increased military risk in return for the political advantage. That is not unreasonable, assuming that the political advantage can be obtained. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's credibility in the administration now is on the line. He is being realistic when he says that it can be done -- it would be quite a diplomatic soup.
The Arab countries, trying to head off what is clearly coming, are still trying to get Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave. He may, but here is the problem: The United States has said that disarmament was the key. If Hussein leaves, he obviously will leave key lieutenants in place. To head a U.S. attack, they will have to capitulate on the disarmament question. If Iraq is going to capitulate on that, Hussein might as well stay and do it himself. As for a coup, it is much more likely during the war, when Hussein is isolated, then before the war, when he is not. Confidence in the Untied States is not high in Iraq. They will want to see Washington commit.<<
freerepublic.com |
