12/4/2002
The Elephant on the Security Council's Doorstep

Understandably, the United Nations Security Council is much exercised over events in the Middle East. Not only is it exercised, but the 15 nation body has managed to achieve a degree of consensus that is something of a record for such a controversial issue. The consensus is primarily over the Resolution passed by the Security Council on 30 March 2002: Resolution 1402.

It is said that so as not to waste the Good Lord's time, pastors would argue a theological case, not by quoting the Bible, but simply by quoting the relevant chapter and verse containing the phrase to which they wished to refer. It was taken for granted that the other would know whatever text it was by heart. So it is with Security Council Resolutions among the initiated, the numbers are waved like symbols. But let's remind ourselves what 1402 is all about.

"The Security Council, reaffirming its resolutions 242 of 22 November 1967, 338 of 22
October 1973, 1397 of 12 March 2002, and the Madrid principles,

Expressing its grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation,
including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the
headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority,

1. Calls upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire;
calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah;
and calls upon the parties to co-operate fully with Special Envoy Zinni, and others, to
implement the Tenet security work plan as a first step towards implementation of the
Mitchell Committee recommendations, with the aim of resuming negotiations on a
political settlement;

2. Reiterates its demand in resolution 1397 of 12 March 2002 for an
immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation,
incitement and destruction;

3. Expresses support for the efforts of the Secretary-General and the special
envoys to the Middle East to assist the parties to halt the violence and to resume the
peace process;

4. Decides to remain seized of the matter."

The last clause in this Resolution could be thought of as routine. Of course, the Security Council will remain seized of the matter; after all they have passed more Resolutions on the Middle East than anywhere else. But there is a feeling that this time they, and more importantly, that ethereal and diaphanous concept 'the international community,' want them to. More than that - is insisting that they should. This time they really mean it.

The reasons for this are complex and several. At its simplest there is the realisation that the world faces many, far larger problems - and this purely local difficulty is a diversion of its time and diplomatic resources. The problems of development, poverty, degradation of the natural environment, climate change, and beyond these, of terrorism and organised crime are of greater weight and demand more urgent attention.

Then there is the problem of the imbalance of geo-political power: the cultural, military and economic supremacy of the United States and the need of the world to yoke America into some stable, integrated and interdependent global structure. In a very real sense the countries of the world need to hang together for fear of hanging separately, the United States included.

In Europe we have faced this problem already. Germany for so long the dominant economic and military powerhouse is now the foundation on which democratic Europe rests. The success of the EU, stumbling though at times it may have been, is testimony to democratic co-operation; a multilateral approach to problems within a framework of law.

As the world shrinks under the forces of globalisation, mass communication, mass travel, the sense of interdependence becomes more evident, the need for international law more apparent. And it is the Security Council, ultimately and however imperfect it may be, that is the cornerstone of that international law.

So the Council's influence is growing hand in hand with globalisation. Even if it lacks the means to enforce its Resolutions, its members have the power. The United States has enormous leverage over Israel. Without the European Union the Palestinian Authority would be in a state of even greater collapse. And the Arab League - principally represented by Syria on the Security Council - has taken the important step of telling the Palestinians to face the fact that Israel has a right to exist, will always be there, and therefore to start learning to co-exist.

In a sense what the Security Council is doing by its current debates on the implementation of 1402 is a dry run for the wider debate that must come soon. This is, of course, the debate on the future of Iraq. The Council has told Iraq, unequivocally, that it must obey its Resolution to allow UN Weapons Inspectors unfettered access.

On the assumption that this is unlikely to happen the Council must then face the probability of military action against Iraq by the US, supported by, at least the UK. It is not as though the Council has had no warning. Both Bush and Blair have made no secret of the imperative, as they see it, to destroy potential weapons of mass destruction and to see a 'regime-change' in Iraq. This is the elephant now on the Security Council's doorstep and to which it must now react.

There can be few (if any) members of the Security Council that would not, privately at least, be grateful for a progressive 'regime-change' in Iraq. Saddam Hussein's unpredictability renders him a potential threat even to Syria. Even so legitimising the declared goal of 'regime-change' could have fundamental consequences for the way the UN conducts its affairs.

But a military or other significant action against Iraq that was not so legitimised directly but which nevertheless was widely perceived to be necessary, would undermine the authority of the Security Council and pave the way for other such unilateral actions and still more flouting of its Resolutions.

It is desperately important for the Security Council that it retains some grip on international initiatives. For this it will need good leadership and great courage in the months to come.