inside the glass house

The pride and price of being a Security Council member
NEW YORK-- The United States and Britain, in a desperate attempt to garner nine votes for a divisive UN resolution justifying a war on Iraq, have tried every trick in the political cook book: bribe, cajole, arm-twist and even threaten some members of the Security Council with economic reprisals.

But as of Friday, the diplomatic end game was moving against US President George W. Bush and the politically besieged British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as US Secretary of State Colin Powell hinted that one of the options before the White House was to abandon the UN resolution and go to war.

If the US eventually decides to do so -- mainly because it just cannot generate the nine votes it needs in the Security Council -- the diplomatic setback will be a humiliation both for the US and Britain.

A senior US official was quoted as saying: "There's a recognition that this has not been our finest diplomatic hour." In the first place, the US move to seek Security Council authorisation was meant primarily to provide political cover for Blair, whose Labour Party insisted on UN authorisation.

But if Blair decides to go to war without such authorisation, the "regime change" may occur sooner in Britain than in Iraq.

Anti-French mood
The Americans are so livid with France's "intransigence" in threatening to use its veto that the cafeteria in the US Congress has changed its menu to replace "french" fries with "freedom" fries. Predictably, there will be no "french" toast, "french kiss" or "french letters" in the US any more.

The situation at the UN remains so fluid that despite all the Anglo-American pressure, the political balance in voting seems to be changing between two editions of the same newspaper.

"I don't think we have experienced a more confusing situation in living memory," says one Asian diplomat. The media have added to the confusion: news reports predicting that the US has nine votes are contradicted the next morning by the same newspaper.
"One paper says that Guinea has agreed to vote for the resolution while a second paper says that the Guinean president has changed his mind," he said. "The same holds for Pakistan and Chile. If true, this must be driving the Americans crazy because nobody knows where the whole process stands."

Guinea, one of the six non-permanent members in the Security Council whose vote is crucial to the US, has so far refused to go public with its decision. So have Pakistan and Chile. According to speculation, their votes could go one of three ways: "yes", "no" or "abstain".

Amidst the political see-saw at the UN voting last week, Secretary-General Kofi Annan took the wisest course possible by refusing to predict the outcome of the upcoming vote.

"Until there is an actual vote, one cannot tell what will happen," Annan told reporters, prompting speculation that there may be eleventh hour surprises at voting time.

Political circus
The divisive resolution, which will give legitimacy for a military attack on Iraq, needs nine votes and no vetoes to be adopted by the 15-member Security Council.

The only publicly declared "yes" votes are: the US, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. The "no" votes or abstentions will come from France, China, Russia, Syria and Germany. The six fence sitters are: Angola, Guinea, Mexico, Chile, Pakistan and Cameroon. The five Security Council members with veto powers are the US, Britain, China, France and Russia.

French President Jacques Chirac has publicly stated he will veto the resolution "whatever the circumstances". If he does as promised, even the nine votes the US is lobbying for will not save the resolution from rejection.

And so the political circus goes on at the UN even as more than 250,000 US troops have surrounded Iraq awaiting orders for a military attack.

The heaviest strain has been placed on the six "undecided" developing nations who have been caught between US and Britain on one side and France on the other. Perhaps former Foreign Minister A.C.S. Hameed was right when, at the height of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, he once rebuffed a proposed plan for Sri Lanka to seek a two-year, non-permanent seat in the Security Council.

Hameed felt there would be so much of political pressure on Sri Lanka as a Security Council member that it would end up antagonising everybody -- and pleasing nobody.
As it watches Pakistan visibly uncomfortable in its seat -- caught between the US in the Security Council chamber and Islamic militants in the streets of Karachi -- India is politically relishing its neighbour's dilemma.

When Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative Chittambaranathan ("Call me Charlie") Mahendran was teased last week with the question: "Can you tell me how Sri Lanka would have voted if it was a member of the Security Council today," he smiled -- but remained tight-lipped, liked all good diplomats, never to answer a hypothetical question.

Back to Columns