|
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
07:21 p.m.
Non-aligned nations mobilise - could Uniting for Peace actually happen?
Distinguish first of all news from wishing-thinking.
The Non-Aligned Movement - since the end of the Cold War, if not long before, as good as its name: all over the place - has shown sufficient organisation and substance to secure a special meeting of the UN Security Council for UN members not currently on the UNSC to have their say on Iraq and the war.
According to the AP report, nearly 60 nations have put their names down to speak in the open session (which started yesterday, and is continuing today). South Africa apparently took the lead on behalf on the NAM, asking for a strengthening of the inspection effort. (A full transcript of proceedings will eventually appear here.)
That such a session should take place is not, perhaps, of much significance in itself. But it is at least an indication of the capacity and willingness of a large group of nations [1] to organise themselves in the UN to fight the war.
The Uniting for Peace Resolution (which I first discussed on Sunday - the main part of the General Assembly Resolution establishing the procedure is set out there) is, perhaps, the best way that such a group can make its mark on the debate. Not, of course, expecting such a resolution to stop the war - there is not the slightest sign that anything coming out of the UN or anywhere else would have that effect on USG plans. Not directly, at least. But in causing delay, uncertainty, confusion - allowing the maximum play for events to supervene - it might do some good.
It would also be good for the morale of those opposing the war to see a 'second front' opened up at the UN; and the process would savour less of the impenetrable diplomacy of the SC, and more of the anti-war rally. The involvement of Third World nations in the vanguard of the UN process would appeal both to those politically inclined to sympathy with the Third World, and also those naturally supportive of the underdog.
The NAM nations themselves (and the rest supporting the UFPR process) would have the satisfaction of doing something for world peace - and cocking a snook at the Great Satan - whilst having safety in numbers against US reprisals.
Politically, it's a feelgood manoeuvre, with the vibe of Passport to Pimlico or San Marino v Brazil in the (soccer) World Cup: it's expected to fail utterly, so any benefit to the cause of stopping Bush's war represents an infinite percentage surplus over budget - the proponents have nothing to lose; whereas to secure even a few days' delay in hostilities; to tie up precious resources at State and the Foreign Office; to drive Saint Colin to distraction on network TV - these would be perceived as defeats for USG and friends, with loss of morale, loss of face, sand in the war machine, and other good things.
And, if time is as critical as they say it is [2], delay of only a few days may make the difference between war in March and waiting till November.
In order to make the process work, what's needed is a floor manager, a Lyndon Johnson to know who needs what, to count the votes, to corral the representatives, to make sure all the procedural requirements are satisfied to the letter - and to make sure the buggers all turn up on time and vote the way they promised!
As I said in the earlier piece, the first requirement is either 7 SC members or half the total membership (list here) of 191 countries (ie 96) supporting a request for an emergency session of the UN General Assembly.
A resolution would, of course, have to be drafted to appeal to the maximum number of member states, to satisfy the terms of GAR 377, and (not to be forgotten) to give the possibility of actually doing some substantive good for the Iraq situation.
And it would only be in order [3] if submitted after the UNSC has deadlocked because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members. Delegations at UNHQ would need to get authority from their governments to use the procedure, involving varying and uncertain lead-times before their country could safely be added to the Yes column.
The US and UK would certainly counter-attack with threats and bribes (though multiplying by 10 or 20 the numbers to be got at - compared with the stray nonperms on the SC - obviously makes the task much costlier in man-hours, if not in slush-fund outlays!). Keeping the troops in line would be a job of work for whomever was floor-managing the resolution and his team. But the reward in terms of publicity and kudos for even partial success could be considerable.
That's the brilliant plan, at least. Testing the old proverb, Cometh the hour, cometh the man....
- This list, dating from January 2002, shows 115 nations as NAM members (including the suspended Yugoslavia!).
- Which I've long doubted: only three weeks ago I noted a statement from General Richard Meyers himself denying that there was any need to hurry.
- On which subject I have a major beef with the UN site: an hour wasted on trying to find an online copy of the GA Rules of Procedure. And comparing this page with this, I surmise that (unlike the SC Rules) the GA Rules are deliberately not available online! Why, in God's name?
|
