Old transatlantic wounds within the United Nations Security Council were reopened this week, as France condemned American unilateralism and demanded a rapid transition to democracy, and the United States defended the war and insisted the move to Iraqi sovereignty would not be rushed.
On the face of it their positions seem to have hardened.
”In an open world, no one can isolate themselves, no one can act alone in the name of all, and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules,” said the French President Jacques Chirac, in one of his most explicit attacks to date. ”There is no alternative to the United Nations.”
Meanwhile, US President George W Bush insisted it had been right to fight the war, even raising the issue of weapons of mass destruction and linking the former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, to terrorism.
”The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder, and refused to account for them when confronted by the world,” he said.
But behind the rhetoric the battle lines were being drawn.
The French were making it clear who is to blame for the mayhem in Iraq. The Americans wanted everyone to know that while they had returned to the UN for help, this was not an admission of guilt.
The US has clearly lost the sympathy of an important mediator, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Annan abandoned his usual bridge-building and fence-sitting language, and delivered a clear critique of preventive action as outlined and practised by the Bush administration, warning that it could lead to ”lawlessness” and threaten ”stability”.
Annan said the UN charter allows military action for the purpose of self-defence, but ”until now it has been understood that when states go beyond that and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.
”Now some say this understanding is no longer tenable since an ‘armed attack’ with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time.
”This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years.”
The French have made it clear they have no intention of vetoing the forthcoming resolution. But along with many other Security Council members, they have argued that if there is to be a multilateral force, there must be shared responsibility for decision-making and a greater role for the United Nations.
Bush gave a nod in that direction, insisting the US was keen to ”expand the UN’s role in Iraq. As in the aftermath of other conflicts, the UN should assist in developing a Constitution, training civil servants and conducting free and fair elections.”
At this stage, this does not appear to be enough for most members of the Security Council. Central to the debate is the issue of a timetable for the handover of power from the occupation forces to a sovereign Iraqi government.
”This process must unfold according to the needs of Iraqis, neither hurried nor delayed by the voices of other parties,” Bush said, giving a diplomatic jab to both the French and the Germans.
Both Chirac and his German counterpart, Gerhard Schröder, believe that the move to Iraqi sovereignty is crucial to restoring security in the country.
”In Iraq, the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, who must have sole responsibility for their future, is essential for stability and reconstruction,” Chirac said.
Both he and Schröder have said they would like to see the transition take place within months.
In all this there is little doubt about who has most to lose. Since Bush’s televised address in which he announced that the bill for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan would be $87-billion his approval ratings have been in free fall.
So long as the number of casualties in Iraq keeps rising and the economy remains stagnant there is little of hope of him rebounding.
More contrition before the international community might have eased the way to a favourable resolution.
It would also have amounted to an admission of failure for the foreign policy decision most likely to define his presidency. — Â