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.
atimes.com |
