Okay, let’s try our best to do the speculative figuring: January 27 is the date that Blix must report back to the Security Council on what the inspectors have found and on the state of Iraqi compliance. Let’s assume that the Bush administration will take a polite day or two to study whatever he says and then will sing their song (“Here a material breach, there a material breach, everywhere a material breach e-i-e-i-o”). The Blix report and the Bush administration “report” will then go to the Security Council and that’s where the fun will begin.
All of us can read the polls just as well as Karl Rove on this one. The American people are anxious about, essentially unwilling to go to war without a UN sanction. On the other hand, we know that the German government, previously adamantly antiwar, is already hedging on its Security Council vote and French President Chirac just yesterday publicly warned the French military to be prepared to be used in an Iraqi war. So, it seems painfully plausible to imagine that in some form such a sanction might indeed be given. This means that around February 1 the jawing (plus the arm-twisting) will begin and – it being the UN – will certainly last at least two to three weeks before, if the Americans are successful, a resolution appears. This, in turn, means that we’re talking about a late February/early March war (if the North Koreans don’t somehow throw a sabot into the machinery).
In other words, there’s a high likelihood that the initial imperial “war” will actually take place during the first two weeks-plus of February in the corridors of the UN. There has essentially been no decent behind-the-scenes coverage of the UN in our press. This might seem to be the moment when, were you the managing editor of a major paper in the United States, you might assign some of your best reporters to dig up the UN dirt. Why am I doubtful that this will occur?
Well, let me start with the piece I noticed two days ago buried deep inside the New York Times. The reporter was Julia Preston, the headline, “Configuration of Security Council May Force U.S. to Renew Lobbying Over Iraq” — note that term “lobbying,” which seems mild enough. I found the piece pretty typical. It started as follows:
“It took nine weeks of exhausting negotiations for the United States and the other 14 nations on the Security Council to agree on a resolution on Nov. 8 to make Iraq give up its illegal weapons.
“But just as the optimal cool-weather season for a military assault in Iraq’s deserts approaches in February, the United States may have to go courting again here to secure the votes of five countries that became nonpermanent Council members on Wednesday.”
Now let’s pause a moment and consider that word, “courting.” It has a certain charm, courting being a somewhat outmoded way of pursuing the opposite sex. I mean, we’re in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers territory here (only there’s just one brother and a plethora of brides, if that’s what they are). The word implies, in gender terms, a modest power imbalance (men go courting, women are wooed), so imagine perhaps the US as Cary Grant, France, China, and Russia as obstreperous Kate Hepburns, lively shrews to be tamed. Nothing wrong with all this, except that you don’t have to be an expert, or a genius, or an insider to grasp that the imagery is all wrong. Lobbying, courting? In the outmoded form, we could try, “shotgun marriage.” Or to update things a bit, “date rape,” or maybe something like “statutory rape.” Or alternatively, when you consider the valuables changing hands, or promises thereof, something closer to prostitution. Anyway, take a look at the modest Times piece, if you wish, at:
“But just as the optimal cool-weather season for a military assault in Iraq’s deserts approaches in February, the United States may have to go courting again here to secure the votes of five countries that became nonpermanent Council members on Wednesday.”
Now let’s pause a moment and consider that word, “courting.” It has a certain charm, courting being a somewhat outmoded way of pursuing the opposite sex. I mean, we’re in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers territory here (only there’s just one brother and a plethora of brides, if that’s what they are). The word implies, in gender terms, a modest power imbalance (men go courting, women are wooed), so imagine perhaps the US as Cary Grant, France, China, and Russia as obstreperous Kate Hepburns, lively shrews to be tamed. Nothing wrong with all this, except that you don’t have to be an expert, or a genius, or an insider to grasp that the imagery is all wrong. Lobbying, courting? In the outmoded form, we could try, “shotgun marriage.” Or to update things a bit, “date rape,” or maybe something like “statutory rape.” Or alternatively, when you consider the valuables changing hands, or promises thereof, something closer to prostitution. Anyway, take a look at the modest Times piece, if you wish, at:
To read the whole Times piece click here
And then try the latest piece by the Guardian‘s security affairs editor, Richard Norton-Taylor, just for the choice couple of paragraphs below in the middle about what actually happens at the UN. This is the way imperial powers work their “charms,” but let’s not tell anybody, shall we? Tom
If only he would listen, this could be Blair’s finest hour
Britain’s envoys want the PM to stall Bush’s plans for war
Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday January 6, 2003
The GuardianIn his biography, The Politics of Diplomacy, former US secretary of state James Baker shamelessly admits how, before the 1991 Gulf war, he met his security council counterparts “in an intricate process of cajoling, extracting, threatening, and occasionally buying votes”. America’s relative power, and its willingness to use it, has increased over the past 12 years. James Paul, head of Global Policy Forum, a non-governmental body that monitors the UN, says: “The capacity of the US to bring to heel virtually any country in the world is unbelievable.”
The US is corrupting the security council by bribing its permanent members – Russia with dollars, China with trade concessions, France and Britain (if it needs any carrots) with the prospect of oil concessions. And Turkey will be amply rewarded if it allows the US to use its bases for an assault on Iraq.
Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian’s security affairs editor