Thursday, October 03, 2002
Diplomatic Tussles

Clinton's speech was a "mesmerising oration" according to the unbiased political correspondent of the Guardian, Patrick Wintour. From a quick scan, it appears that he emphasised action through the United Nations with a tough regime of weapons inspections but also sanctioned unilateral action, if necessary, because the Security Council was "was still guilty of taking decisions based on self-interest".

However, although Bush has obtained support from the House of Representatives, the UN Security Council remains out of his grasp. Both France and Russia favour the existing system of resolutions or a tougher version, as they have constructed a relationship with the Saddam regime that would fall apart if regime change were to occur. They also prefer the Security Council as a source of legitimation for their actions, when necessary, and pay lip-service to international law, without giving up the power necessary to provide the UN with teeth. However, this situation is inherently unstable and, as the actions in Kosovo demonstrated in 1999, the importance of the Security Council as a body for legalising and sanctioning military action, has started to decline and will decline further, if the American's ferocious resolution is not passed. France and Russia would then find that they have invested time and energy in an institution that sinks into irrelevence as the US starts to assert its hegemony.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive