Airstrip One

UNanimity 10th November 2002, 22.55

It is now clear that the United States obtained the support that it desired from the Security Council with the unanimous vote to support arms inspectors returning to Iraq. Here is a timetable for the implementation of the resolution and the possibility of the US effecting militay action if Iraq fails to co-operate. What is clear is that the 'inevitability' of war should not be argued although the probability is now greater than it was at the beginning of this month as Hussein has fewer opportunities to play off the members of the Security Council.

The text of the resolution, including the much-publicised phrase "material breach" can be read here. Effectively, the French and the Russians argue that the resolution demands a referral back to the Security Council if the conditions are not met whereas the US views a breach as the casus belli for a regime change.

There are two schools of thought: that the US made significant concessions to the "sceptical three" in order to obtain the support of the Security Council including oil futures; or that the intense diplomacy concentrated the minds of the permanent members to maintain the authority of the UN as a constraint on the likelihood of a "vengeful, unilateral strike of an obsessed superpower". One suspects that the United Nations needs the United States more than the US needs the UN.

This outcome was not the most appealing since one of the few positive outcomes of possible military action was the negative impact that it may have had on the authority of the UN. Unfortunately, Blair, Powell and Bush's untimely common sense have conspired to support this much unloved institution for now.