Call France's bluff

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 10/19/2002 | editorial board

[Pokey78]

The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, predicted to an eminent associate earlier this year that once the issue of Iraq was remitted to the UN, there could be no war.

Judging by the glacial pace at which it has moved since George W Bush addressed the General Assembly on September 12, his prediction about that body is turning out to be uncomfortably, if unsurprisingly, accurate. The UN Security Council is busily seeking to tie America down in a thousand strands of legal tinsel - and, in the case of France, for the most ignoble of reasons.

But are President Bush's convictions so malleable as Mr Powell's aside appears to imply? He is much more cunning than conventional European wisdom would allow. Just as he proclaimed after September 11, 2001 that "Islam is peace", only to launch the toughest crackdown on domestic trouble-makers since the height of the Cold War, so he knows the value of going through the requisite multilateral procedures to soothe international opinion.

That, however, is exactly what going to the UN is all about: procedure, not substance. If the deliberations of the Security Council do not yield what the US Administration needs, despite the apparent compromises, it will go ahead anyhow.

Powerful elements in the Administration, who deem the UN to be of no great significance, will not be unduly distressed by the organisation's failure to uphold its own resolutions. They could not care less if its authority lies in tatters.

By a curious quirk of fate, it is those who care most about the future of the UN who ought to advocate the toughest approach to the recalcitrants. That is why the American and British representatives in New York ought to bring forward their resolution to the Security Council as quickly as possible - and dare France to veto it.

It is worth the risk for several reasons. France is quietly far more dependent on America than its rhetoric would suggest, not least for its nuclear weapons technology. It would therefore think twice before acting. But if France does use its veto, and America proceeds to overthrow Saddam Hussein anyhow, the UN will look more irrelevant than ever.

In consequence, France's residual diplomatic influence as one of the permanent members of the Security Council will be further reduced. Quite apart from anything else, a post-Saddam regime in Iraq will not be very likely to look with favour on the commercial interests of any nation that stood with the vanquished tyrant until the very last. An excess of cynicism can harm a country's interests as much as excessive naivete.

[dighton]

Hope ya don't mind the keywords...........;-)

[dead]

Powerful elements in the Administration, who deem the UN to be of no great significance, will not be unduly distressed by the organisation's failure to uphold its own resolutions. They could not care less if its authority lies in tatters.

Strategery. This whole excercise is geared not towards making the UN a toothless, irrelevant entity, but towards pointing out that they already are.

France is quietly far more dependent on America than its rhetoric would suggest, not least for its nuclear weapons technology.

and crappy Sylvester Stallone movies, which France claims to despise but would wet their panties in frustration if they couldn't watch.

Yo Adrian!

[The Great Satan]

As I pointed out here on this forum right after Bush's speech, to general consternation, Bush is using the UN to kill time. This will kill a few more months, while Bush looks like the heavy -- i.e., he looks strong. Bush needs all the time he can get, because Saddam has the initiative here. This is perfect.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Because of weather, January-Febuary are the optimum times to attack. Meantime......., well killing the U.N. is not a bad way to kill time.