After Iraq expressed its wish to follow the UN resolution and allow UN weapons inspectors into Baghdad the U.S. at once raised a question about new and more strict resolutions.
And it managed to successfully “promote” this idea. UN Security Council members again began issuing resolutions against the Baghdad regime.
The U.S. proved to everyone long ago that it could not be satisfied with a peaceful settlement of the Iraq issue. This is why, the UN work will most likely be organized according to the following scheme: New resolutions – Iraq rejects them – new sanctions – Iraq surrenders, then America again demands to toughen the resolutions and everything will repeat again.
This circle is not endless however, finally the UN will issue a resolution which Iraq can in no way follow. The UN will be moved aside, while U.S. troops will be sent to Baghdad.
It is clear now that even preparing new resolutions could split the UN in some way, actually this already occurred this week. Five permanent Security Council members shut the door to avoid being disturbed and started to produce resolutions against Iraq. Delegations of Arab, African and Asian states (also constant UN Security Council members) started to murmur, while being disappointed. They had reasons for this disappointment: they were made to understand that the five countries will themselves decide what to do with Iraq, while the others have only to vote. The feeling of deep dissatisfaction about what is happening in the UN only intensified when ambassadors of 10 countries which are not constant Security Council members read in U.S. newspapers the resolution draft discussed behind the door. Why were these countries not asked about it? Was the qestion asked by representatives of Bulgaria, Guinea, Ireland, Cameroon, Columbia, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria. What is curious is that the new resolution got to the press, though it didn't make it to the non-constant UN Security Council members.
The UN "golden five" did not stop and continued to offend its colleagues. They even had no access to the short minutes of the meetings with the chief of UN weapons inspectors, Hans Blix. To pass a resolution nine votes are necessary, unless a constant UN Security Council member vetoes it. Theoretically, 10 non-constant UN Security Members could revolt and vote in a coalition against the resolution. Because the question is not about Iraq, but about national pride of the ten countries. According to Washington Times, one of the ex-U.S. ambassadors to the UN never ignored the possibility of such a revolt, though he did not know which resolution would bring it about.
Iraq considers conditions of the previous resolutions are strict enough. However, eight palaces of the Iraqi leader are still out of the resolution limits and this was why it was altered.
Representatives of non-constant Security Council member countries are forced to wait till the permanent member countries settle their contradictions behind the door and work out a resolution or two, as France suggested. However, all these fights and injuries to national pride of several countries seem to be a bit far-fetched. If it is necessary, the U.S. will come to Iraq alone and it will deliver that unilateral strike. So is the Bush doctrine. 10 UN Security Council members come and go, but the U.S. interests remain.
Sergei Borisov PRAVDA.Ru
Translated by Vera Solovieva
According to Kissinger's first scenario, the Russian troops will remain in their positions. In this case, Russia will get 20 percent of Ukraine and most of the Donbass