A rchive Date
[ 15-02-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.N ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/stanway.html
It pays to read the fine print at the UN
By PAUL STANWAY - Edmonton Sun
February 15, 2003
Sometimes it pays to look at the fine print.
Next month Iraq is due to assume the chairmanship of the 66-member United Nations Conference on Disarmament, and as of yesterday the august international body had done absolutely nothing to block the move.
I mention this snippet in an attempt to provide some context for the latest dispatch by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, who reported yesterday that the search for the smoking gun continues and suggested that after 12 years of defying various UN resolutions, it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that Iraq has no intention of co-operating with his lads.
The man is patience personified.
A dozen years of lying, cheating, evasion and obstruction are evidence of, well, nothing really. The cautious Dr. Blix would like more time, please, to figure out what if anything the Iraqis are up to. God forbid that an agent of the UN should be judgmental.
Blix seems the perfect flunky for an organization which, for its entire history, has been a forum in which the world's despots and dictators (the majority) can use diplomacy, dishonesty and bureaucratic stalling to run rings around democracies (the minority). That is what happens when you give third-rate gangsters and tribal butchers the voting rights, equality and respect they deny their own citizens.
Against this background, it makes perfect sense for Saddam Hussein's dictatorship to be appointed chair of the UN conference established in 1979 as the "multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community." Saddam even polished his credentials this week by issuing a decree banning all weapons of mass destruction from his country. What a guy. Can a Nobel Peace Prize nomination be far away?
Like so many of these organizations, the chairmanship of the disarmament conference rotates alphabetically (how else would the world's despots get the opportunity for international legitimacy?), which is why it's Iraq's turn. The only reason anyone would support the Butcher of Baghdad for the position would be to stick it to the U.S., but in the present climate of world opinion that might be more than enough reason for France, Germany and Russia. Common sense will most likely prevail, but who knows?
World opinion seems overwhelmingly anti-American, which - contrary to the impression one gets from most media - doesn't automatically make the Bush administration wrong or war against Iraq immoral. One need only remember the overused but nevertheless appropriate analogy with the late 1930s: 65 years ago most public opinion was against war and in favour of appeasement of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich.
But as I've said before in this space, it's American public opinion George Bush has to worry about. A new CBS-New York Times poll suggests two-thirds of Americans support military action against Iraq, but 63% would prefer the U.S. acted with the support of the UN and world opinion. People were evenly divided on whether Bush is trying hard enough to find a diplomatic solution.
But perhaps the most telling statistic is that 60% of Americans believe the economy is the Number 1 problem facing their country, not Saddam or terrorism.
Never underestimate the traditional isolationism of a country that has no hostile neighbours (Lloyd Axworthy notwithstanding) and believes it controls an entire continent. Persuading the U.S. to go to war has never been easy.
The past week or so has also finally alerted Washington to a new Franco-German-Russian alliance that seems determined to challenge the superpower's foreign policy.
Under the terms of a treaty signed in 1963, France and Germany are pledged to reach a "common position" on foreign policy ahead of all international forums in which they are both involved, which includes the UN and NATO. And under the terms of a Franco-Russian treaty of Feb. 7, 1992, both nations are obliged to support the other's interests when framing their foreign policy.
In addition, before his election as president of France, Jacques Chirac was chairman of a trilateral commission consisting of France, Germany and Russia, which attempts to co-ordinate their policies with respect to the development of the European Union, and on all international issues of mutual concern.
As I said: it really does pay to read the fine print.
Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@edm.sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|