UN Stance Dictated by American Agression
Here's part of today's War Diary from Stratfor. I thought it was an interesting look at the kinds of problems faced by the UN in this situation.
[quote]Amid the countdown -- T minus four days to chief weapons inspector Hans Blix's report to the U.N. - U.S. military deployments to the region chugged along on auto-pilot; U.S. relations with Europe were on the rocks and Hussein was not going into exile. Friday is the Muslim holy day, so while we expect some anti-war agitation at the mosques -- and possibly at the Hajj -- not much else will be happening. Overall, with positions now clear, little remains but to wait for Monday … a crucial day for the U.N.
The UN's situation is precarious because it is a tool, used by countries like France, in bilateral sparring. However, it is also a bureaucracy that constantly seeks to establish its own legitimacy. The bureaucrats have been struggling to delay or deter a war -- not because they care deeply for Hussein, but because they deeply oppose U.S. unilateralism, and want to stake out this kind of conflict as their purview.
The United States will go to war, with or without U.N. approval. The U.N. now must calculate where it wants to be after that war. If Washington launches an attack in the face of U.N. opposition, the U.N. will be weakened, marginalized and delegitimized. To avoid this, the body must find some way to paint U.S. action as, if not formally sanctioned, at least not totally derisive of the U.N. Formal sanction through the Security Council is impossible because permanent members France and Russia are using the council as their own political platform.
The answer lies with Blix.
Blix could be expected to give an ambiguous report - one with nothing even remotely resembling a smoking gun or other serious sanctions violations. This would give the U.N. better grounds to ask for more time before military force is used. This would seem a reasonable course of action for Blix - who, after all, doesn't answer to Washington or Paris, but to his own bureaucracy.
However, it is exactly because of this reality that Blix can be expected to give a negative report on Iraq.
An ambiguous report would be useful for the U.N. only if there were still a chance to stay Washington's hand. However, a look at U.S. troop deployments clearly indicates that stalling time is over. President George W. Bush already has created an office in the Pentagon with the mission of rebuilding a post-war Iraq. Military conflict is certain.
An ambiguous report now would be counterproductive for the U.N., forcing it into an unwinnable showdown with Washington. Instead, there is a good chance that Blix will say Iraq has continued to obstruct and delay the inspections process, declare Baghdad's behavior unacceptable and say full disclosure of its weapons program is in doubt, though not proven to be fraudulent.
It seems that Blix is already foreshadowing his move. As U.S. troop movements have intensified, so has the harshness of Blix's criticism of Iraq. It also should be noted that Blix offered no resistance to Washington's offer to send U-2 spy planes to aid weapons inspectors - knowing that Baghdad's anger would be assured.
With this kind of report, U.N. officials could say that they did not sanction war, but merely gave an honest evaluation that the United States took and ran with.
Washington would gain a little cover, with a negative U.N. report.
The U.N. would gain a little cover, without passing a formal resolution for military action.
The blame would fall on Iraq.
<hr></blockquote>
[ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
[quote]Amid the countdown -- T minus four days to chief weapons inspector Hans Blix's report to the U.N. - U.S. military deployments to the region chugged along on auto-pilot; U.S. relations with Europe were on the rocks and Hussein was not going into exile. Friday is the Muslim holy day, so while we expect some anti-war agitation at the mosques -- and possibly at the Hajj -- not much else will be happening. Overall, with positions now clear, little remains but to wait for Monday … a crucial day for the U.N.
The UN's situation is precarious because it is a tool, used by countries like France, in bilateral sparring. However, it is also a bureaucracy that constantly seeks to establish its own legitimacy. The bureaucrats have been struggling to delay or deter a war -- not because they care deeply for Hussein, but because they deeply oppose U.S. unilateralism, and want to stake out this kind of conflict as their purview.
The United States will go to war, with or without U.N. approval. The U.N. now must calculate where it wants to be after that war. If Washington launches an attack in the face of U.N. opposition, the U.N. will be weakened, marginalized and delegitimized. To avoid this, the body must find some way to paint U.S. action as, if not formally sanctioned, at least not totally derisive of the U.N. Formal sanction through the Security Council is impossible because permanent members France and Russia are using the council as their own political platform.
The answer lies with Blix.
Blix could be expected to give an ambiguous report - one with nothing even remotely resembling a smoking gun or other serious sanctions violations. This would give the U.N. better grounds to ask for more time before military force is used. This would seem a reasonable course of action for Blix - who, after all, doesn't answer to Washington or Paris, but to his own bureaucracy.
However, it is exactly because of this reality that Blix can be expected to give a negative report on Iraq.
An ambiguous report would be useful for the U.N. only if there were still a chance to stay Washington's hand. However, a look at U.S. troop deployments clearly indicates that stalling time is over. President George W. Bush already has created an office in the Pentagon with the mission of rebuilding a post-war Iraq. Military conflict is certain.
An ambiguous report now would be counterproductive for the U.N., forcing it into an unwinnable showdown with Washington. Instead, there is a good chance that Blix will say Iraq has continued to obstruct and delay the inspections process, declare Baghdad's behavior unacceptable and say full disclosure of its weapons program is in doubt, though not proven to be fraudulent.
It seems that Blix is already foreshadowing his move. As U.S. troop movements have intensified, so has the harshness of Blix's criticism of Iraq. It also should be noted that Blix offered no resistance to Washington's offer to send U-2 spy planes to aid weapons inspectors - knowing that Baghdad's anger would be assured.
With this kind of report, U.N. officials could say that they did not sanction war, but merely gave an honest evaluation that the United States took and ran with.
Washington would gain a little cover, with a negative U.N. report.
The U.N. would gain a little cover, without passing a formal resolution for military action.
The blame would fall on Iraq.
<hr></blockquote>
[ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Comments
Don't you think that before we launch an attack, word will be given to them to pack up their stuff and skootch out of the country ASAP? If so, wouldn't that be a fairly obvious signal to Hussein that the jig is up and his time has come?
What would keep him from going "hey, go snatch those guys up and bring them here immediately!", especially if he feels he has nothing to lose. Then he could hold them hostage to keep us at bay?
I'm not sure on the procedure on stuff like this: would we still attack anyway, risking killing these inspectors?
Also, couldn't Hussein simply order each of the inspectors detained at a strategic military target, knowing that if that site gets bombed the inspector dies also? We'd end up killing these inspectors. Not on purpose, of course...but still.
I don't know, I'm asking. That's a pretty scary thing to think about. Right now, I'd hate to be one of those inspectors. I would genuinely be worried that might exit from the country might not be as smooth and trouble-free as I'd hoped.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Knowing how we currently seem to kowtow and defer to the U.N. on nearly everything, wouldn't the chances be pretty slim that we'd risk killing these inspectors in the process of bombing Iraq? If we were unpopular and hated by various U.N. windbags and third-world thugs before, imagine our reputation and standing if we did that. Imagine how we'd be painted THEN!
:eek:
Is this a likely, plausible scenario? If not, why exactly? Personally, I think it's very possible and I'd be scared to be over there right now as a weapons inspector (or any Westerner).
[ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>