[PEN-L:31570] Equilibrating to global governance - Iraq, France, USA

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Below is an instructive article from Saturday's IHT, drawing on French
sources. It gives an inside view of the world or international
skirmishing, that most left wingers do not focus on. But the decision
between war and peace may depend on this skirmishing.

The article refers to events in the previous week. It appears to be
trying to prepare the ground for the sort of civilised background
agreement between France and the USA. In the event this did not happen
because the US submitted a revised draft resolution with offended by
containing only modest revisions. The French have just submitted a
counter-draft but the text has not yet been made public. The article
below appears to go over the ground instructively, so it seems far from
out of date.

It is clear that the resultant of forces, whatever the compromise, (and
for domestic electoral reasons Bush is already having to tone down his
language) will be about the leading powers of the world interfering in
the internal affairs of a sovereign country like Iraq or North Korea. The
difference is about the degree of subtlety with which pressure is placed,
and how accountable the USA is prepared to be for its actions to the
other major cpaitalist/imperialist powers.

Chris Burford
London

________________

A few words now separate France and the United States from a major
triumph or a great disaster in diplomacy at the United Nations. Both
nations must bend slightly to achieve the time-honored solution to
differences between competing allies: There should be no clear winner and
no clear loser in this diplomatic tiff. That outcome will ensure that the
ultimate loser is Iraq?s Saddam Hussein. He counts of divisions in the
Security Council to save his worthless, lying hide and his cache of
weapons of terror. He must not be allowed to benefit from arguments that
centrer on procedure more than on goals.

Paris and Washington have been arguing for nearly a month, ostensibly
over a new Security Council resolution that would embody President George
W. Bush?s challenge to Iraq to disarm completely and immediately or face
a resumption of the 1991 Gulf War.

Officials in both capitals say they have no expectation that the Iraqi
dictator would abide by a new, effective disarmament resolution. The
argument has been over how and when  not really if  military
action to depose the man all Arabs know as Saddam will come, one French
official told me this week.

There is also an unspoken Franco-American difference over the
capabilities and intention of the chief UN weapons inspector for4 Iraq,
Sweden?s Hans Blix, But this is likely to become moot if Bush?s strategy
of making Saddam?s clear and present lying to the United Nations about
weapons of mass destruction the trigger for military strikes. That
strategy avoids prolonged wrangling over the details of what
inspectors  should they get into Iraq  do or do not find.

Until Wednesday, French and US officials were emphasising publicly their
continuing sharp disagreements. The suggestions of conflict had two
purposes: to wring final advantage from the negotiations and to mask how
far each side has moved toward the other this week. This was particularly
trues for France, which finally seems to have written off Saddam and his
Ba?ath Party regime as no longer viable or useful to French
interests.

A French proposal conveyed on Wednesday by Foreign Minister Dominique de
Villepin to Secretary of State Colin Powell seems to have broken an
impasse over US demands that there be only one Security Council
resolution, which would include both tough inspections terms and
automatic authorisation for military action if those terms were not
met.

Accepting Bush?s demand for tough conditions, Paris proposed language
requiring that the Security Council convene immediately after a report by
Blix of Iraqi obstruction tot ?decide to ensure compliance ?by any means,
including the use of force.?

Powell then leapfrogged that proposal and offered the French more than
they had asked. The United Stated circulated a paper within the Security
Council of Thursday that dropped all reference to the need for a second
resolution and to authorisation for the use of force.

That leaves Washington free to act if the council does not respond with a
new authorising resolution to Iraqi obstruction. At the moment of
decision, Bush?s focus is correct on getting the right conditions for
Blix?s inspection efforts rather than on the argument over
automaticity.

The bedrock of the resolution that should emerge in a day or two must be
Bush?s demand. Those include protection of Iraqis who talk to the
inspectors about violations and an immediate, complete and truthful
declaration by Saddam about his weapons programs once the new UN
resolution passes. Refusal to make the declaration or lying in it would
constitute the first recognisable obstruction of the inspection
effort.

The sudden admission by North Korea that it has been lying about the
pledge it gave the Clinton administration t halt its nuclear weapons
program in 1994 both complicate Bush?s ?perjury? strategy on Iraq and
underlines its importance. North Korea?s treachery shows that only a
global approach can counter the proliferation or weapons of mass
destruction. It vindicates Bush?s decision to take Iraq?s defiance to the
Security Council, and makes unified international action even more
imperative.

Bush has made a concerted effort to give the five permanent members of
the Security Council a leading role in counterproliferation. That effort
starts with confronting Iraq, Britain sides with the US view on Iraq, and
China would not oppose it. Russia is following France?s lead for the
moment, even indicating it would support a French veto of a US
resolution.

That collision would cost France far more in global influence than any
other outcome in the Iraq crisis. The French-American compromise that is
now within easy reach is in the interests of both nations, and of the
Security council itself.