The Scotsman - Top Stories - Change in UN may hit Bush's plans: A RESHUFFLE of the United Nations security council has thrown into doubt hopes that the US president, George Bush, would continue to use the UN as the primary means of disarming Saddam Hussein. In a major shift of power within the UN hierarchy, Germany - one of the leading opponents of military action against Iraq - was handed one of the ten non-permanent seats on the Security Council.
Frankly, I'm not at all sure what difference that's supposed to make. Why would having Germany on the council make a difference to US plans? It's not as if the Security Council has generally been terribly happy about the idea in any event.
The problem with that story is that it lacks quite a lot of context. I'm not sure if the Scotsman assumes that all Scots will automatically know what country Germany is replacing, or if they're assuming that Germany is striding purposefully into the leadership of the council and will derail all consideration.
Slightly more context -- very slightly more -- can be gleanded from the Washington Post:
For Germany, New U.N. Role Means Muting Anti-War Tone: As Germany takes a U.N. Security Council seat that will give it a major voice in any decision to sanction war against Iraq, the government has begun a nuanced effort to bring the country more in line with its allies' views by blunting the edges of the anti-war policy that got it reelected in September. Political analysts here say Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his ministers are preparing the public for the possibility that Germany could endorse military action at the United Nations and assist participating allies, though no German troops would join in battle. The tabloid Bild has dubbed the evolving policy Jein, a combination of ja and nein, the German words for yes and no.
Germany began a two-year term on the Security Council yesterday and will chair it in February, a month when critical issues regarding Iraq may be brought before the council. In a New Year's Eve address to the nation, Schroeder suggested that Germany would not automatically vote against war. "We Germans know from our own experience that dictators sometimes can only be stopped with force," Schroeder said. "We also know what bombing, destruction and the loss of one's home mean for people." [...] The German softening of its position, analysts here suggest, may also be motivated by ambition to become a permanent member of the Security Council. That goal would be seriously undermined if Germany balked at an otherwise collective decision of the U.N. body.
That makes slightly more sense; if a Germany strongly opposed to war is chairing the council when the vote for war arises (if there is one -- I don't actually expect one before the event if at all, but that has nothing to do with Germany), then it may be more likely to do what it can to derail the proecess. That said, depending on what result the US wants from the council, I would expects its diplomats to negotiate around Germany, rather than through it. (They will be terribly insulted by the slight, I expect.)
I do wonder on what planet Germany exists if they're expecting a permanent seat on the council. Certainly, they're not likely to get one anytime soon. There's no sign that either the UN or the security council itself is prepared to reconstitute the council. (I wonder if the security council's approval is needed to reconfigure the security council itself. That would be vastly entertaining.)
And for just that final bit of necessary context, let's have a look at -- of all things -- a Reuters story via New Zealand, shall we? Let's shall:
U.N. Security Council takes on five new members: With the start of 2003, the powerful and prestigious U.N. Security Council took on five new members yesterday and bids adieu to another five who wrapped up two-year terms on the 15-nation body. With disarmament of Iraq at the top of the council's agenda, Germany, Spain, Pakistan, Chile and Angola take rotating two-year seats on the council. They join the council's five permanent members -- the United States, France, Russia, Britain and China -- and five other nations with one year remaining of their two-year terms -- Bulgaria, Cameroon, Guinea, Mexico and Syria. The five newest members were elected by a vote of the 191-nation U.N. General Assembly in September. They fill seats vacated by Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore.
Judging from the makeup, the security council is losing two countries allied with the US via defense treaties (whatever that's worth), and three unaligned, and gaining four allied with the US via defense and other treaties, and one unalligned. Technically, in any event. In theory, at least, the reconstitution of the council ought to be a political gain. In practice ... well, we'll see, won't we?
In any event, at this stage of the game, the constitution of the security council almost certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever the administration is planning.
Posted by iain at January 02, 2003 01:41 AMComments
With the benefit of an extra month, I'd have to disagree on the matter that it matters how the UNSC is composed. I'd agree the UNSC composition has not necessarily turned away from the US.
Yes, Germany has made anti-war noises, and if it is altering this, it is doing so only slowly. Germany has, in fact, not made an appeal to be nominated as a Permanent Member of the SC, but has made the case that it ought to be held by the European Union. At present, the European Union, is split on its support of the United States. Vocally, at least, Spain (UNSC member), Portugal, the UK (UNSC P5 member), Italy and Denmark support the United States. The Dutch are still hammering out a coalition government, but the Christian Democrats seem to support the United States, after Colin Powell's speach, and Labour is not objecting to this too vocally. The anti-US core is Germany, France, Belgium and Luxemburg. Who knows who Sweden, Finland, Greece, Ireland and Austria will support. Hypothetically, were this to be presented before the Council with QMV, it would put 41 votes in favour of the US, 27 against, and 11 undecided.
It is, naturally, only hypothetical for the EU to consider this issue. It appears that Eastern-Europe supports the US accross the board, including UNSC-member Bulgaria.
From that point of view, I'd say that Europe is on-board with the US. It will still have to be seen how the votes go in the Security Council. I do think it matters. Not so much that a resolution comes out of it, but how it affects public opinion. Nobody seemed to care that Russia and China objected to bombing Yugoslavia, because western public opinion was in favour - so they did it.
It certainly matters what the Security Council finds, because that will shape public opinion, and the political cost of war of the states executing the war-effort. What will be of concern is the difference between a simple majority vote in the SC and the actual meaning of the votes. If a veto is necessary to block a pro-US resolution, then the vetoing power, and the veto itself, will be weakened. The US will simply go on without a mandate, in the knowledge that the majority of the council was in favour, and it was the illiberal veto which stopped a legal written mandate.
Russia, China, Germany, Pakistan, France and Syria are nominally against. Some more so than others. US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria are certainly for. But crucial council-members for gaining a simple majority are on the fence. How will Cameroon, Guinea, Mexico, Chile and Angola vote? Supposedly Chile and Angola are being enticed into a pro-US camp. It's still up in the air, especially with the idea that even without a simple majority in favour, the US is going to bomb anyway.
In certain respects, you're right, it doesn't matter for the bombing wether or not there is a UNSC mandate, but it does matter for the political cost of doing so.
Posted by Michael Wright at February 7, 2003 05:15 AMKing George VII will probably be denied the resolution that he wants, because some weapons are being destroyed. The UN will probably not pass a conditional war resolution, because King George VII will claim the conditions are met. Because it is his devine right the King will probably attack in any case. After all he wants to control the oil and he was picked by God to rule, the USA and UK.
Posted by Robt Stendel at February 28, 2003 02:39 PM
