Irak, Medio Oriente y Asia

Un pasaje sobre la resolución de la ONU – y lecciones aprendidas.

Autor: Editorial

Fecha: 16/10/2003

Traductor: Lujan Salas

Fuente: Stratfor

Summary

The U.N. Security Council unanimously passed a U.S.-crafted Iraq resolution Oct. 16 after eleventh-hour consultations between France, Germany and Russia. The change in position of these nations, as well as China and Pakistan, marks a realization by the international community that Washington is not leaving Iraq anytime soon -- and the only way to retain influence in operations there will be through the Security Council. But in the end, the vote might simply affirm to Washington that it is better to act and ask forgiveness than wait and ask permission.

Analysis

Following a one-day delay in voting at the behest of Germany, France and Russia, the United States won passage of its latest U.N. resolution on security and nation-building in Iraq. After eleventh-hour telephone consultations between French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the nations supported the resolution as written.

The sudden change in views by the three key opponents to U.S. military operations in Iraq reflects their realization that the United States is unlikely to leave the central Middle Eastern nation any time soon -- and the best way to retain influence there is to get involved. Though all three nations are still reticent about sending troops to Iraq, they are equally concerned by the idea of Washington carrying on without any U.N. oversight.

One key factor leading to the change in opinions was Turkey's decision to send forces to Iraq regardless of a U.N. resolution. One of Washington's main reasons in pressing for a new resolution was to pave the way for several nations -- including Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia -- to send troops to Iraq. But Turkey's offer demonstrated it was possible to get troops without the international mandate. This did not altogether remove the U.S. desire for a new resolution -- which would offer international recognition of the legitimacy of the U.S. role in Iraq -- but it did soften the need for one.

After several rounds of negotiations, Washington finally presented a resolution of which Berlin, Moscow and Paris could approve, even if they were not entirely satisfied. One of the sticking points was the date for a transition to Iraqi rule. The latest resolution simply sets a date for Iraqis to schedule elections, leaving a fairly open-ended timetable. But the resolution does specify that the multinational force will leave Iraq once Iraqi rule is restored, or be reviewed in one year.

This stipulation offers some assurances to France, Germany and Russia that the United States will not be permanently stationed in Iraq -- if everything works out. And, given the Security Council oversight, Russia and France have better chances of influencing what happens in Iraq with a mandate than without.

Even China and Pakistan supported the resolution. For Islamabad, its support is part of a broader unwritten agreement with the United States to resume major military hardware sales, including F-16s, to the South Asian nation. This will both strengthen Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's position at home and help repair the growing rift in military capabilities with rival India.

Beijing's motivations are a reflection of China's attempts to revive the United Nations. Beijing agreed to back the resolution in part to show solidarity among council members, noting that a resolution without a strong show of support was ineffective and set a bad precedent. For China, the United Nations represents a potential source of international might that can balance the global power of the United States -- something Beijing needs as it remains far from its goal of great-power status.

Ultimately, though, it is questionable what the new resolution will accomplish. Though it offers international legitimacy -- a united mandate for action that Washington lacked when it invaded Iraq -- Turkey already has proven that it is willing to send troops without a resolution. Further, other nations that requested a resolution, such as South Korea, used the call more as a convenient excuse rather than a serious condition, and will continue dragging their feet to avoid the domestic political fallout that likely would result from sending troops to Iraq.

For Washington, however, this is an international vindication of the decision to go into Iraq in the first place, something that might be used domestically to reduce growing criticism of the war and the postwar period that is dogging the upcoming presidential elections. In the end, Washington has shown that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission.