Let me start by asking people who wish to reply to this topic to try and not let this subject become polarised as so many topics are.I know,pretty
much,where people stand on this coming war but I am genuinely interested in how others here think the question of a 2nd UN Resolution
to be resolved.I am less interested in how individuals think itshould
The options,as I see them,are as follows:
1/Resolution tabled by UK/USA and passed perhaps with abstentions(but no vetos) from any one or all of the other Permenant Security Council
This would mean an about face on behalf of France and Russia and to a lesser extent China.This would take time or a damning Inspectors report from
2/Resolution tabled by UK/USA but at least one of the Permenant Security Council Members uses their Veto.Yet there is an overall majority in the UN
Security Council as a whole.
Blair recently has been hinting that if a Veto was used unreasonably a simple majority would be acceptable.Few doubt that a majority could be
found.The Non-Permenant Members are:Angola ,Bulgaria ,Cameroon ,Chile ,Germany ,Guinea ,Mexico ,Pakistan ,Spain ,and Chile.For some of the smaller
countries this is the cash equivilent of a Non League Football Club drawing Manchester United in the FA Cup.
Of course the more Permenant Security Council Members use their Veto the less easy it is to justify this position.
3/A Resolution is not even tabled as:a)There is no point as it will only be Vetoed,b)Resolution 1441 gives the UK/USA the right to act within
international law without a further Resolution and only further consultation at the UN is needed, not agreement.
This would cause major problems for Blair.He could concievabley do this but the political consequences,even if the war were quick,would be dire.
Personally,I doubt he could take option 3 as it could make the entire country unstable and without the UK would the USA go it alone?Perhaps,Perhaps
Option 2 would signal the death of the UN.Stability since WW2 has depended on Permenant Security Council Members excepting the Veto of their peers to
ignore even one Veto would be to recognise what is probably obvious(though dangerous)that the USA is today without peers.The death of the UN would be
slow and dangerously unpredictable.
Option 1,in my opinion,offers the safest and surest way forward.But will Bush wait?I don't think so.
So,As you see that brings us right back to the beginning.If there is an option that I have missed out please feel free to add it and let me know how
you see this conundrum unravelling.