I’m trying my best to be surprised at this. Really I am. I mean, after all this time and all these negotiations and a resolution that the security council voted unanimously on, Iraq is still talking about not accepting what is the unified will of the United Nations?

Get me some smelling salts post haste, because I think I may faint from the shock.

Of course, the fact that every SC member supports this resolution, and that the US truly got its multilateralist groove on in this whole resolution-boogey, is no impediment to Iraq trotting out the same tired horseshit:

“This is the will of the United States on the rest of the world,” Iraqi U .N ambassador Mohammed Aldouri told Reuters.

.. .

“Others did their best, they did what they could — France, Russia, Syria and China — and in the end they had to look after their own national interest,” Aldouri said.

Now I’m really not too bright, so allow me to look over this thing one more time just to make sure I know what’s going on.. .

The US attacking Iraq unilaterally would be America imposing her will on the rest of world. But going to the UN and working for 2 months to get a unanimous resolution passed is also the US imposing its will on the rest of the world.

OK, just wanted to be sure about that. ..

The fact is, Saddam is really backed into a rhetorical corner now. Before he could, with at least the thinnest veneer of legitmacy, make protestations about the US acting unilaterally against the will of the rest of the world. But now that a vigorous inspection regime has been endorsed by the entire SC, he has to rely on the same kind of claims that folks in the Blogosphere have been making for some time: namely that actions taken in the UN by various countries are really on their own selfish behalf (ie, France and Russia in the case with opposing action in Iraq), disguised (poorly) with the rhetoric or international law and cooperation .

The only difference here is that Iraq’s UN ambassador is implying that the self-interest of the pro-resolution SC members was based somehow on fear of reprisals by the US, or perhaps simply on the fact that unilateral action by America would be the final tear in the paper-thin facade that says the UN is an effective body. He also seems to suggest that France and Russia et al only cpitualted at the end because of their country’s self-interest, when in reality they had been tirelessly working on their own behalf throughout the entire process.

But anyway, what will happen now is Iraq will end up quickly violating some part of the resolution. I don’t think they will reject it outright in the first seven days that are required, but will instead act like they intend to comply with it for as long as is possible without making any actual real-world concessions to inspectors. I’d guess they could do this for about a month. Then when it becomes apparent that Saddam doesn’t really plan on adherring to any of the SC’s stipulations, most of the Security COuncil will want to spend several weeks debating the issue, while the US will be quietly moving its forces into their final positions to begin an assault on Iraq.

































































































































































































































































































































last update : 22-11-2017

Comments are closed.