Analysis: Salvaging the diplomatic wreckage

Analysis: Salvaging the diplomatic wreckage

By Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent

Blair is working 'flat-out'

Facing a double veto in the Security Council from France and Russia, the United States and Britain are trying to salvage something from the wreckage by aiming for a technical or so-called "moral majority" of nine of the 15 member states.

Such a majority, while having no legal status, would at least provide some political cover for Prime Minister Tony Blair at home. Nine votes and no vetoes are required to pass a resolution.

But one thing is clear -- if a veto is used, there will simply be no resolution.

No vote has yet been scheduled but is expected later in the week.

New tactics

The tactic is to propose a series of questions Iraq would have to answer to show that it was disarming. The current deadline of 17 March could be extended for a short period, but not for more than a few days, perhaps ten at most.

If the United Nations fails to act, that means the United Nations will not be the international body that disarms Saddam Hussein."

Ari Fleischer
White House spokesman

Iraq would have, for example, to explain fully what happened to chemical and biological warfare material still unaccounted for.

One example would be to ask Iraq to account for all the Mustard gas it is believed to have produced. A UN report released last Friday night says that "it is unlikely that remaining gaps in the material balance of Mustard produced and weaponized from 1982 to 1990 can be solved without Iraq providing additional evidence...."

By offering benchmarks, Britain hopes to entice the undecided on the Council who want some means of judging whether Iraq is complying.

A group of five countries is left which have not made their position clear: the Latin Americans - Chile and Mexico - and the Africans - Angola, Cameroon and Guinea.

Pakistan has decided to abstain.

The votes of all five are now needed if the US and UK are to reach their target.

US and UK diverging

But the interests of Washington and London are now diverging.

While Tony Blair would be put into great domestic difficulty by a failure of the resolution and even more by a failure even to muster nine votes, President Bush is likely to seize the opportunity of attacking the United Nations and rallying Americans with a call to patriotism and an attempt to assume the leadership which in theory lies with the Council.

This process is already underway.

The White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said: "If the United Nations fails to act, that means the United Nations will not be the international body that disarms Saddam Hussein."

Kosovo and Rwanda

He drew comparisons with the Balkans and Rwanda, where the UN either played no role or stood helpless. He added: "The people of Iraq will know who to thank."

The scene is set for American contempt for the UN to grow at the same time as resentment of American power by opponents of war.

This doesn't mean that war will be stopped - the US, probably supported by the UK, will go ahead anyway - the Security Council will be in disarray

Another complicating factor, more perhaps for Mr Blair than for Mr Bush, is the statement by the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that action without a clear mandate would not comply with UN rules.

The point is debated by lawyers but politically it would be harder for the British Government to dismiss than the Bush administration.

Both governments would be thrown back on claiming that Resolution 1441 and previous resolutions warning Iraq give authority for military action.

This does not mean that war will be stopped. The US, probably supported by the UK, will go ahead anyway.

The Security Council will be in disarray. There will be diplomatic scores to settle later.

The draft resolution currently says that Iraq will have failed to take its final opportunity of disarming unless by 17 March "the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active co-operation".