| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| U.N. civility degenerates to displays of anger | |
| 2003-03-16 | |
| Diplomacy is not supposed to be a contact sport, particularly in this gleaming monument to international civility. But as the United States and Britain tried to forge a compromise on the Iraq crisis, tensions that had been building for six months burst into the open. Chaos and open displays of anger have displaced decorum in the usually staid hallways of the United Nations, as backers of a U.S.-British-Spanish resolution that would open the way for war grew increasingly fed up with war opponents — principally France, Germany and Russia. At a briefing March 7 to discuss the progress of weapons inspections, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw shocked U.N. purists by referring to French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin as ''Dominique.'' First names aren't used in formal public meetings here. That was just the beginning of a descent into behavior more common at state legislatures. After a tense, three-hour meeting Wednesday night, officials from all sides complained of bullheadedness, deceit and rudeness — qualities forbidden in the genteel world of international diplomacy. Diplomats eager to find a compromise on a resolution were furious that the French rejected a British proposal almost before it was offered — and before the Iraqis themselves had said no. ''That was an ambush,'' snarled a normally unflappable diplomat for a country that supports the resolution. U.S. and British officials have given up trying to conceal their anger and frustration with resolution opponents, particularly the French, who they say are determined to kill a resolution, no matter what it says. French officials sarcastically dismissed a British proposal to hold Iraq to six disarmament benchmarks while moving the deadline for compliance out of the resolution and into an unofficial side agreement. ''Must we resort to tricks?'' said a French official. Russia seemed almost gleeful at the predicament U.S. and British diplomats found themselves in as they tried to sell the notion of disarmament ''benchmarks.'' ''How are those benches? Are they leaving marks?'' Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov joked to reporters, expressing Russia's disdain for the latest U.S-British approach. There was a growing feeling here that the rift within the Security Council, which many diplomats felt could somehow be papered over, was instead widening and could damage the United Nations' ability to work effectively. Those tensions were reflected in public Thursday, when Straw called France's seeming opposition to any compromise ''extraordinary.'' Straw said in London that ''without even proper consideration, the French government have decided that they will reject these proposals.'' While U.S. and British officials were genuinely angry about their opponents' intransigence, there was also a strategic intent behind their criticism. Both countries hope that by ostracizing opponents such as France, they can improve the climate for a compromise or help the political standing of embattled British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Some diplomats held out hope for compromise, and the negotiations seemed destined to continue throughout the weekend, notwithstanding an earlier vow by the White House to force a vote this week. The six council members who remain officially undecided on the measure — Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan — pleaded with the big powers to find a way out. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the deadlock a ''crisis.'' Diplomats from the six swing countries navigated the hallways here like football wide receivers trying to avoid defensive backs. By the hour, rumors swirled about where allegiances lay, and reporters swarmed ambassadors to demand the latest. Exhausted U.S. and British officials have not given up their hope that a last-minute diplomatic gambit will break the logjam. But Washington and London seemed increasingly resigned to the idea that France or Russia would veto the measure even if backers could scrape together the nine votes needed for passage. U.S. officials believed they were close to nine votes — Chile and Mexico remained elusive, and Pakistan would like to abstain — but British diplomats weren't quite so sure. If they got nine votes, the United States and Britain would argue that the resolution gave moral authority for a war and that opponents were thwarting the will of the international community. Opponents would doubtless ask whether the hundreds of resolutions vetoed by the United States over the years — most about Israel and tensions in the Middle East — also had the force of moral authority. That kind of impasse could create enduring divisions on the Security Council and make cooperation on issues such as North Korea's nuclear program extremely difficult to forge. U.N.-watchers say the rancor could poison relations between council opponents. Will Russia, for example, get any U.S. help in recovering its multibillion-dollar debt from Iraq in a post-Saddam Hussein era? Or will France, Russia or Germany get any access to Iraqi oil projects in a post-war Iraq governed early on by Washington?
British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock virtually pleaded with his council colleagues late Wednesday night to find a middle ground. He compared the Iraq resolution to a badly damaged ship that will sink unless extreme measures are taken. ''We all face an important decision, probably a historic turning point,'' German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer told the council March 7. At the moment, that sentiment may be the only thing diplomats here can agree on. | |
| Posted by:Spot |
| #3 No, no, no. There is no trouble at all - the honorable ambassadors are merely having a frank exchange of ideas! |
| Posted by: Crescend 2003-03-16 20:26:44 |
| #2 They just need to hold hands and sing "Kumbayah". That *always* works. Maybe they should deploy some UN peacekeepers, too, just in case. |
| Posted by: Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-16 08:55:16 |
| #1 Trouble in Paradise? |
| Posted by: Spot 2003-03-16 07:28:25 |