At UN, strong incentive to compromise on Iraq

The discord at the Security Council over a war with Iraq may sound fierce. But, if recent history is any indication, the key member nations are likely to find harmony in the coming weeks, experts say.

France has threatened to veto an attack; Russia and China are also cautious about US war plans; and the US and Britain talk of "going it alone" without the other members.

But diplomats and observers say neither a veto nor a go-it-alone outcome is likely. For all five nations, which each hold veto power on the council, there is great incentive to reach a compromise.

"The veto is a very risky strategy, pregnant with consequences," says David Malone, a former Canadian ambassador to the UN and the president of the International Peace Academy. "In the past, there's always been a sense of mutual accommodation among the permanent five Council members. And relations of each of these countries with Washington are much more important than any of their relations with Iraq."

For George Bush and Tony Blair, getting the Security Council's imprimatur would help them justify a war to skeptics among their constituencies. A UN endorsement of an attack would also likely firm up support in wobbly front-line states like Turkey, say analysts.

Secretary of State Colin Powell is expected to make a presentation at the United Nations next Wednesday, stressing the extent to which Iraq has been concealing its illicit programs.

While France may appear firm in its convictions, there are reasons it might yield, among them: A veto that drives away Washington and London will likely relegate Paris to the sidelines during any attack and diminish its influence in the Middle East, where France has significant oil and other interests. France may also fear US revenge in the future - for example, if Paris seeks help with peacekeeping in Ivory Coast, where France is intervening in a civil war.

France hasn't rejected military action outright, observers note - only a hasty decision to go to war. Following the report by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix Monday, the French UN ambassador lobbied to give inspectors "several weeks" or "a few months" more to complete their work. This dovetails with the Bush administration's apparent willingness to hold off a few more weeks - if for no other reason than to get its full arsenal into position.

Germany, which assumes the rotating Council presidency on Feb. 1, has joined France as outspokenly antiwar. Unlike the French, however, Germany does not possess veto power.

As deliberations over war continue, the Security Council's credibility and role are at stake.

Before the 1999 NATO airstrikes against Yugoslavia, Russia's threat of a Council veto in defense of its Slavic Serb brethren saw Washington turn to NATO military alliance to drive Serb forces out of Kosovo. And the US has steadfastly kept the Council at arm's length during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, assuming for itself the crucial role of third-party mediator.

Page: 1 | 2