As the war on Iraq enters its most critical phase, Mohamed Sid-Ahmed raises questions about the future of the United Nations The Weekly Standard is an ultra- conservative American periodical whose main claim to fame is that President Bush is often inspired by the political ideas it advocates. In a recent issue, the Standard discussed the need to reform the international system in line with the new realities which have emerged in the Iraqi crisis. To that end, it proposed that one of the mainstays of the global order, the United Nations, be restructured to reflect these new realities, specifically, that it should be led by three, not five, states, namely, the United States, Britain and Russia. In proposing that France and China should be stripped of their permanent membership status in the Security Council, the Standard is bringing to the fore the old argument that the UN Charter, which was approved at the end of World War II, went further than it should have in offering great power status to five nations on the grounds that they were the victors in World War II, because neither France nor China played a key role in reaching that result. However, invoking this argument raises an important question: why should our frame of reference be the date of the Allied victory over the Axis powers in 1945 when we discuss reforming the international system in conditions which are very different from those which prevailed more than half a century ago? Actually, the justification for concentrating world leadership in three instead of five nations is related to issues concerning the present and the future, not the past, more specifically, to the strains in the western alliance revealed by the Security Council deliberations over the Iraq issue. The United States considered that France went too far in its opposition to the war option, depriving Bush of the opportunity to wage his war on Saddam Hussein in the name of the international community. The Bush administration accuses France of driving a wedge between Security Council members and of precipitating a crisis that could bring about the collapse of the whole UN edifice. It is clear that the proposal to replace five great powers by three is in reality a proposal to replace them by one, namely, the United States, Russia, which inherited the Soviet Union's permanent seat in the Security Council, does not represent a counterpole to the United States, either militarily or ideologically. As for Britain, it is reconciled to its status as America's junior partner and can no longer dream of pursuing an independent policy of its own. There is no doubt that the US position is in obvious contradiction with the UN Charter. The Charter unequivocally states in its preamble that "We, the peoples of the United Nations, are determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest. We have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims." The first article of the Charter provides that the "purposes of the United Nations are to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures... for suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace." On 18 March, that is, two days before the war was launched, the International Committee of Jurists, an institution with consultative status at the UN, warned that "an attack on Iraq without the permission of the UN is an illegal act and constitutes an aggression. There is no legal basis for such an intervention. In the absence of an authorisation from the Security Council, no state is allowed to resort to force to attack another state, except in case of legitimate self-defence or in response to an armed attack." But despite the fact that the United States has acted in clear violation of both the letter and spirit of the UN Charter, many French strategists have criticised their government's stand on the war claiming that President Chirac's intransigence drove the American president to act alone and abandon the United Nations as a cover for his policies towards Iraq. These critics say that the French government's line provided the Bush administration with an excuse to go it alone and to try and dislodge France from its present status as a great power with veto rights. True, there have been signs of conciliatory overtures from several countries in recent days. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has declared that, although Russia wants the Iraqi crisis to go back to the UN, it does not want to see the US fail in its war against Iraq, for reasons he defined as both "political" and "economic". This is an obvious attempt to mend his fences with the United States, following a squabble between the two countries after Washington accused Moscow of secretly delivering weapons to Iraq. Along similar lines, the German government has for the first time spoken out in favour of a regime change in Iraq, with Foreign Minister Yoshka Fischer declaring that his country "hopes the Iraqi regime will collapse as quickly as possible, to reduce the number of casualties". Fischer added that the situation in Iraq will be complex after the downfall of the present regime, and that fresh ideas will be needed to deal with the new realities. However, neither these conciliatory overtures by Russia and Germany nor the criticism levelled by a number of prominent French strategists to Chirac should in any way be construed as a disavowal by these countries of their previous stands, but rather as a recognition that continuing to pursue a line of unrelenting opposition to the American line could adversely affect their own interests. Responding to these overtures, the Bush administration sent Colin Powell on his first trip to Europe since the US invasion of Iraq began. Powell said he wanted to hear the views of the Europeans on how to reconstruct Iraq, but made it clear that there would be no concessions on issues the US considers vital. Powell has tried to convince European governments that the US must play the leading role in administering post-war Iraq and determining its political system. This is resolutely opposed by the Europeans, who insist that this role should be performed by the United Nations. The Bush administration concedes that the UN should have a central role when it comes to issues of humanitarian assistance, but categorically refuses a greater role for the international organisation in the critical stage that will follow the war. Thus despite the efforts now being made to heal the rifts in the Western alliance, these rifts are likely to deepen in the post-war situation, with Washington's insistence on dominating post-war Iraq showing no signs of abating. Lest the message is not getting through to the Europeans, Powell made the following extraordinary statement just before setting off to "consult" with his European "We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future." His statement, together with the recent assertion by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that the US-led coalition, not the United Nations, will, play the key role in the post-war situation, are indicative of the sharp differences between the Bush administration and many European leaders. According to Rice, Iraq will be governed as soon as the war is over by an office headed by a retired American general, whose activities will be supervised by the Pentagon. Observers affirm that retired General Jay Garner will be appointed to head this office for at least two years before handing over power to a temporary Iraqi authority. No one has been more active in trying to heal the breaches in the western alliance than the British. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw recently announced that Britain and Germany have reached a common understanding on how to deal with matters concerning post-war Iraq, while Prime Minister Tony Blair maintains that all parties agree on the need to transfer power to the Iraqis themselves, rather than to the United Nations or the coalition, as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the reactivation of the Food for Oil programme could help inaugurate a new phase of cooperation between opponents and advocates of the war. These are said to be positive signs. But it does not seem that the British characterisation of the situation enjoys much credibility with many of the protagonists, including the Americans. President Chirac is vehemently opposed to allowing the US and British to play a dominant role in post-war Iraq, while Russia's Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov declared that Iraq does not need a democracy imported from abroad by means of Cruise missiles! Whatever the efforts furnished in the direction of reconciliation, France, Germany and Russia continue to oppose any step that would confer legitimacy on the war. It remains to be seen whether the situation will lead to a resumption of cooperation under the auspices of the United Nations, or whether the temptation to exploit the Iraqi crisis to install a new unipolar world order will prove overwhelming. Much, of course, will depend on the outcome of the war, and to what extent the US will be able to impose its conditions alone. Can the United Nations constitute a counterweight to the United States? Or is the Franco-American controversy an expression of a deep rift in the world system with implications going far beyond the criticisms levelled by the French critics of Chirac's policies?
