This NYT’s article puts the UN Security’s unanimous approval of the latest Iraq resolution into perspective.
Diplomatic triumph?
As soon as the United Nations resolution passed, several late converts — including France, Germany and Pakistan — made clear that it was still too flawed, in their view, to spur any contributions of troops or money beyond current assistance.
Pakistan, a Muslim nation, was one of the countries that Washington had hoped would contribute troops.
Considering the concessions made to Russia to enlist their aid in getting Germany and France to sign on to a worthless document, not to mention whatever the Bushies have pledged to China, I think the U.S. just took another great leap into the abyss.
Jeanne Kirkpatrick sums it up somewhat:
Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, the American ambassador to the United Nations in the Reagan administration, said the overwhelming approval “has some symbolic value which can be cashed in for real value under the right circumstances.”
That depends on how many news services they can enlist to convince the American public this resolution helps the United States in any way, and even at that, the only ‘benefit’ will be to the reelection campaign of George. While Kirkpatrick may think further trade concessions to China and an escalation in the nuclear arms race is worth that PR, others might disagree.
She goes on to comment this is an important tool for Tony Blair. I doubt Tony will be given the leeway in the press George will enjoy here.
Richard C. Holbrooke, President Bill Clinton’s United Nations ambassador, said the vote “proves once again, that, flaws and all, the U.N. is a vital institution to American foreign policy.”
Actually it reaffirms that the UN is an impotent body of pandering whores who can be bought for the right price.