Why Does America Need Second UN Resolution That Much?

Senator Joseph Biden tries to explain that

American Senator, a member of the committee for international relations of the US Senate, Democrat Joseph R. Biden, gave an interview to the newspaper the Washington Post. The article, which was published in the newspaper, was called “Why We Need a Second U.N. Resolution.” The article is a very good reflection of the tense expectation that Washington experiences on the threshold of the coming Security Council voting regarding the American and British resolution on Iraq.

Americans do not want to become a certain target for terrorists. They are afraid of the isolation that the USA, but not Iraq might inevitably find itself in, if America starts acting single-handedly, ignoring the decision of the UN Security Council. As they say, it is easy to beat someone up with a company. Saddam Hussein acts as this “someone,” while a company will appear only after the approval of the second UN resolution on Iraq (the first one is resolution number 1441; the USA keeps blaming Hussein for not observing it). In other words, the international community will start acting together.

In case if the UN approves the American-British plan and passes the resolution, the States will have a lot of allies, as the senator believes. “ Invading and occupying Iraq under a U.N., rather than a U.S., flag would minimize resentment, making us less of a target for malcontents around the world. Failure to achieve a second resolution would isolate the United States instead of Iraq,” the senator said. One shall assume that America is in need of the new UN resolution and nothing else (the USA will be able to cope with Saddam alone, without anyone’s help). This is the idea that permeates through the whole article in the Washington Post.

The American senator is deeply concerned about a possible split within NATO, the outlines of which are noticeable already. This is the issue of France and Germany, first and foremost. “This standoff has produced an unprecedented level of anger with our allies that is bound to corrode cooperation beyond Iraq, including cooperation in the war on terror. The best way out is a second Security Council resolution -- a resolution that, for different reasons, the United States and Europe share a profound interest in achieving.” Then the senator clarified the point of the best way out: “For the United States, a second resolution is not a legal requirement, but it is a strategic one. It would give political cover to key allies such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. And it would greatly increase the number of countries willing to join our coalition. This would help spread the risks of military action and the massive burden of putting Iraq back together -- something President Bush does not like to talk about. Invading and occupying Iraq under a U.N., rather than a U.S., flag would minimize resentment, making us less of a target for malcontents around the world. Failure to achieve a second resolution would isolate the United States instead of Iraq.”

Since there is almost everything clear about USA’s strategic goals, Senator Biden’s explanation does not stand any criticism. It looks simply ridiculous. To all appearances, the senator implied that Europe became rather “old” indeed: Europe is unable to understand, if it is being fooled or if it is offered something practical. The senator continued: “ For Europe, a second resolution is probably the last best chance to avoid war. Solidarity at the United Nations would concentrate Hussein's mind -- and the minds of his senior advisers -- on the need to choose now between giving up weapons and giving up power. There is a chance, however remote, that Hussein will make the right choice, or that the choice will be made for him. A French and Russian veto would gravely wound the Security Council, denying both countries an important forum for leveraging their power and advancing their international agendas.”

Biden suggested the text of the resolution should be added with what France and several other countries have to say regarding the whole issue. He also proposed to adjourn the start of the anti-Iraqi violence (until the end of March, at least). In other words, the American official suggested giving more time to Iraq for meeting the disarmament requirement. “ The resolution should combine points that France and others say they want -- more time for Iraq to meet specific disarmament demands -- with a bottom line that we need: a deadline and a clear commitment to use force. We should support a new resolution that lists very specifically the tasks we believe Iraq must accomplish to show it is disarming; sets an early deadline for compliance, say the end of March; and makes clear that if Iraq does not meet the deadline, the international community will use force to disarm it.”

The senator completed his argumentation with the idea of flexibility that the USA should show in order “to bring the Security Council with us while keeping the pressure on Hussein.” As the senator said, it would be the best thing to do “instead of seeking a resolution that says the game is up and war is on.” Joseph Biden added that he did not imply easing the pressure on Saddam. He just wanted to compel “hard-liners in the Bush administration to do something for which they have shown little aptitude: compromise.”

Well, Americans are best, when they want to win someone over to their side, or when it comes to seeking various kinds of compromise. Most likely, there will be nothing special about the fact if the USA launches the war in the way as Senator Joseph Biden put it – with UN’s approval. On the other hand, the world is on the edge of a global armed conflict, the consequences of which will be unpredictable to everyone. It is the United States of America that keeps pushing the world closer to that line. This gets more and more evident with every day.

Sergey Stefanov PRAVDA.Ru

Translated by Dmitry Sudakov