 |
| Lonely Road to Baghdad? | |
The moral majority has always played a big part of domestic politics in the US, but now,
moral majority politics has found its way into the international scene. Any UN proposal
for attacking Iraq seems
doomed to fail with France
and Russia saying they will veto it. But the US have still been frantically
trying to win support from other nations. The US could bribe the undecided
tin-pot African nations to
get a majority. The 'yes' votes are counted first in the UN security council,
and if 9 yes votes are counted, France and Russia have to actively veto it by
voting 'no' (abstentions are counted third). France and Russia would have to
veto a vote of the moral majority. So if 9 out 15 security council members vote in favor, what gives Russia
and France the right to undermine majority will? Why should Russia
(a democracy for only a decade and still struggling with the concept), and
France (only given permanent membership because of sympathy after being
defeated in both world wars) have veto power when others haven't? And what of the Australians and English who think that a war is only justified if the UN
votes for it? A majority of the UN security council will have voted for it!
What is so inherently good about France and Russia that the war would become
justified if they abstained instead of vetoing? The obvious hypocrisy of the permanent-member-veto system is set to undermine
the credibility of the UN, perhaps fatally. Recent reports suggest though, they may make take another route. The US can
interpret the existing resolution (1441) as justification for invasion, but a
failed proposal couldn't be interpreted that way. The US can take the new
resolution off the table, invade Iraq and bypass the UN. Or it can force a
veto, invade Iraq anyway, and effectively thumb its collective nose at the UN. So what is the real agenda of the US? How much good-will capital does the
US want to spend on destroying the UN? It ultimately depends on their domestic
pressures. George has popular support already, and just has to keep it up.
Tony and Johhny on the other hand are counting on post-war euphoria for
support. Success has many allies, and a quick and successful war will have the
majority of voters suddenly remembering that they were in favor of the war all
along. And what's the ultimate military objective? Discrediting the UN is just
really just a bonus. Ultimately, Johnny, Tony, and George are trying to avoid
regime changes at home.
| 
