Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Sept. 15, 2003 / 18 Elul, 5763

Joel Mowbray

Joel Mobray
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

State Dept. intent on weakening U.N. resolution on Iraq | The State Department is already making plans to water down the U.N. resolution calling for U.N. involvement in Iraq, according to several administration officials.

The exact form of potential changes is not entirely clear, but they will likely comport with requests from Security Council members, particularly Russia and France. Notes one administration official, "They (State's top leadership) are really going to be pushing for a unanimous vote."

State was no doubt pleased by President Bush's recent comment that he is "open for suggestions" from other nations on the Security Council. Many at State view the resolution as an opportunity to score points with countries like France, Germany and Russia. And although State probably does not want to do any favors for Syria, a concerted push for a unanimous vote could also entail just that.

While always a feather in the cap, a unanimous vote is not necessary for passage of the latest measure. At this point, passage is almost a forgone conclusion. Only five nations have the power to veto a Security Council resolution: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. The UK obviously would not block a U.S.-sponsored measure - and Russia, China and France have all signaled through back channels that they will not veto the U.N. resolution, according to an administration official.

Donate to JWR

The clear path to passage should come somewhat as a surprise, considering that many hawks inside the administration find the current text at least tolerable. Strangest of all is probably France's quiet agreement not to veto shortly after making very public noises about a possible veto.

Yet France's willingness to let the U.N. resolution go through - which could mean France staying neutral - does not seem to have curbed State's desire to modify the existing language. And the president's apparent willingness to compromise - his word - means that the final product could come out bearing only moderate resemblance to the initial text. According to those who have worked on the resolution, possible changes could include giving the U.N. more-defined roles in civilian administration, dictating the terms of how oil revenues can be used, and even placing a time limit on the military presence in Iraq.

The first taste of what could be in store should happen this weekend, when Secretary of State Colin Powell travels to Geneva, Switzerland, to meet with representatives from France, Britain, Russia and China. The State Department's official line is that only concepts will be discussed, and that there will be no negotiations on details of the resolution.

While the gathering of representatives of the five permanent Security Council members will probably not be a bargaining session, it will be the first place where Powell indicates to his counterparts in private how tough the United States will be at the actual negotiating table. With some in the administration seeking to have a final deal sealed by the time the president addresses the United Nations on Sept. 23, discussions of the details likely will come right on the heels of the Geneva meeting.

On the plus side, likely to stay put is the one mild paragraph that defines the United States as the leader of the "unified" military force; no other country has an incentive for anyone besides the United States to shoulder the blame for military failures.

One of the most likely deals to be struck will not probably not appear anywhere in the final resolution. France and Russia - two countries that sided with Saddam before the war - want in on the big-dollar contracts in Iraq. Although the American companies with the large contracts are already subcontracting to foreign firms, France and Russia are pushing for explicit assurances that their companies will get a cut of the action.

With the U.N. resolution moving forward at a fairly brisk pace, the State Department has two options: (1) taking advantage of "no veto" pledges from the other Security Council members to push through a resolution almost identical to the initial text, or (2) attempting to win brownie points from countries who opposed liberation of the Iraqi people in the course of securing a needless unanimous vote. Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, the State Department seems prepared to take the latter path.

Every weekday publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Joel Mowbray is the author of the forthcoming book "Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Endangers America's Security". Comment by clicking here.

Joel Mowbray Archives

© 2003, Joel Mowbray.