Carola Hoyos is the United Nations correspondent
After six weeks of intense negotiation and several significant compromises, the future of Iraq's disarmament hinges on two words: "material breach".
On Tuesday, France and Russia, so far supported by China and most of the non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, continued to oppose a US and UK sponsored draft resolution. The draft declares Baghdad in material breach of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement.
They see the words - together with the only slightly less controversial threat of "serious consequences", which diplomats believe the two sides could eventually agree on - as a hidden trigger the US could use to justify military action against Iraq without further Security Council approval.
Whether any of the council's permanent members would be willing to use their veto to block the text is highly questionable. Sensing their reluctance to damage their relationship with the US, Washington this week warned it would call the their bluff by putting the resolution to a vote in the coming days.
On the face of it, finding Iraq in material breach of its UN obligations should not be difficult. As US diplomats point out, the Security Council found Iraq in material breach of its obligations eight times between 1991 and 1993. No country on the council disagrees that, by blocking the return of weapons inspectors since 1998, Iraq has violated one of its most important obligations under the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire.
But the phrase "material breach" has particular resonance. It has not been used since 1993, largely because it has in the past been interpreted under international law as giving the green light for military action - something France, Russia and most other members of the 15-strong council want to avoid.
"I think some members may be a little too hung up on history," said one diplomat, in a lightly veiled reference to remarks by Sergey Lavrov, Russia's ambassador to the UN. In recent weeks he has reminded colleagues of the last time the issue was on the table, in 1998.
Hearing the war drums of the Clinton administration, in November of that year the Security Council rejected wording finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations. The members compromised and settled on a less controversial condemnation of Iraq's decision to block weapons inspections as "a flagrant violation of resolution 687 (1991) and other resolutions".
The principle at stake then was the same: several members of the Security Council were not willing to give the US the authority to bomb Baghdad. Nevertheless, less than a month later, US and UK warplanes headed to Iraq and US diplomats argued they had been given that right by the UN.
With the US, on some accounts, preparing to mobilise troops against Iraq, the stakes are even higher. Washington has formalised its doctrine of pre-emptive strike, which most analysts say - like its stated intention to overthrow Saddam Hussein as Iraqi president - goes squarely against current international law.
Dominique de Villepin, France's foreign minister, earlier this month laid out his country's argument that international law dictates the UN Security Council, not the US, must decide when to go to war with Iraq.
"The way we handle the Iraq crisis will influence the spirit and the form [of international relations]. Collective security will depend on the international community's determination to ensure that [international] law is respected," he said.
Whether France is willing to jeopardise its relationship with the US and uphold that idea by using - or threatening to use - its veto should become clear in the next few days.
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |