After Iraq expressed its wish to follow the UN resolution and allowed UN weapon inspectors to Baghdad, the US at once raised a question about new and more strict resolutions.
And it managed to successfully “promote” this idea. UN Security Council members started again issuing resolutions against the Baghdad regime.
The US gave to everybody to understand long ago that it could not be satisfied with peaceful settlement of the Iraq issue. This is why, the UN work will most likely be organized according to the following scheme: new resolutions – Iraq rejects them – new sanctions – Iraq surrenders. Then America demands again to toughen the resolutions. And everything will repeat again. Though, this circle is not endless: finally, the UN will issue such a resolution which Iraq can no way follow. Then the US will say: So, and what did we say? The UN will be moved aside, while the US troops will be sent to Baghdad.
Though, it is clear now, that even preparing new resolutions could split the UN in some way. Actually, this occurred already this week. Five constant Security Council members shut the door, to avoid being disturbed, and started to produce resolutions against Iraq. Delegations of Arab, African and Asian states (also constant UN Security Council members) started to murmur, while being disappointed. And they had reasons for this disappointment: they were made to understand that the five countries will themselves decide what to do with Iraq, while the others have only to vote.
The feeling of deep dissatisfaction about what is happening in the UN only intensified, when ambassadors of 10 countries which are not constant Security Council members read in US newspapers the resolution draft discussed behind the door. And why did they not asked us about it? – only could exclaim representatives of Bulgaria, Guinea, Ireland, Cameroon, Columbia, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria. What is curious, is that the new resolution got to the press, though it did not to the non-constant US Security Council members.
The UN Golden Five did not stopped on it and continued to offend its colleagues. They even had no access to the short minutes of the Five meetings with the chief of UN weapon inspectors, Hans Blix. To pass a resolution, 9 votes are necessary, without any constant UN Security Council member vetoes it. Theoretically, 10 non-constant UN Security Members could revolt and vote in a coalition against the resolution. Because the question is not about Iraq, but about national pride of the ten countries.
According to Washington Times, one of ex-US ambassadors to UN never ignored the possibility of such a revolt, though he did not know which resolution is necessary for it.
Iraq considers conditions of the previous resolution are strict enough. Though, 8 palaces of the Iraqi leader are still out of the resolution limits, this was why, it was altered.
Representatives of non-constant Security Council member countries are forced to wait till the constant member countries settle their contradictions behind the door and work out a resolution or two, as France suggested.
However, all this fights and injuring national pride of several countries seem to be a bit far-fetched. If it is necessary, the US will come to Iraq alone and it will deliver that unilateral strike. So is the Bush doctrine. 10 UN Security Council members come and go, but the US interests remain.
Not that long ago, American soldiers would train their skills to counter insurgent and partisan military organizations. These days, they are trained to show resistance to the regular army of a potential adversary