Editorial: Pakistan must tread carefully at the UN

www.dailytimes.com.pk It was expected that the UN Security Council session that heard the chief UN weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix on Friday would be divided over what to do next about Iraq. For the first time in the Security Council, members opposed to the American point of view actually clapped long and hard after listening to a hard-hitting French rebuttal of the pro-attack view. Out of the veto-wielding permanent members, only the United States and the United Kingdom thought that the chief weapons inspector’s report meant that Iraq was in “material breach” of the resolution 1441 and thus attracted the “serious consequences” (read attack) pledged in the resolution. Three permanent members, France, Russia and China differed with it and wanted to give more time to the inspectors to disarm Iraq and avoid war, the eight non-permanent members more or less following the cue. Pakistan was in a bit of the cleft stick, being opposed to war but not in a position to take on the United States frontally. It was not present in the Council earlier when a tough unanimous resolution was passed against Iraq asking it to disarm on its own and show proof thereof. At the earlier session, hearing US Secretary of State Colin Powell presenting proof of Iraq’s wilful non-compliance, Pakistan had cautiously attached conditions to the decision to invade Iraq, taking into account the situation in the region, including the Palestine crisis that would certainly be exacerbated by it. The good fortune was that Pakistan’s position was no more strident than the one taken by the other members. Thus it was able to hedge itself against any adverse reaction back home where the public mind is understandably inflamed by the prospect of an invasion that is bound to inflict the long-suffering Iraqi population. On Friday, Pakistan was once again afforded the opportunity to retain its “safe” posture when disagreement on war was expressed by a majority of the members, including those who are, like Pakistan, partners of the US in the international coalition against terrorism. The conjecture in Pakistan was that if it came to casting votes for or against a war resolution, Pakistan might have to abstain in order not to offend the United States. But an abstention might give an opportunity to the country’s strong opposition forces, especially the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, to accuse Islamabad of having betrayed an “Islamic cause”. Equally, a negative vote in a largely pro-US house would certainly sour US-Pak relations at a time when its contradictions with India are at their peak and US support is critical to keep India at bay. But now that the Security Council has clearly expressed itself against the Anglo-American position, Pakistan can relax and assume its normal “pro-UN” posture. Pakistan has carefully crafted its position within the UN framework. It says that a resolution of the Iraq crisis should be affected through the UN Security Council. It supported resolution 1441, which was interpreted as the triumph of the Anglo-US position last year, and expressed itself strongly in favour of Iraqi disarmament. Now Pakistan, along with the other members opposed to the invasion, has been given enough leeway by the chief inspector’s report to oppose the American plan. Since the UN is now seen as an obstacle to the invasion, it is safe to recommend that it may be made the only channel of collective action. Does Pakistan still run the risk of offending the United States? This will depend on what course President George Bush takes. Given the current state of opinion in the Security Council, he might have to go it alone, invading Iraq without a resolution from the Council. Pakistan’s position will then be comparable to all the Islamic states, including Turkey and the Gulf states, from where the Americans will launch their assault on Iraq. Yet, the prospect of unilateral action outside the UN is fraught with difficulties for the United States, unlike when the US and NATO bombed Yugoslavia to stop the Muslim genocide in Kosovo, ignoring the UN because of the threat of a certain Chinese veto and a possible Russian veto. The world “official” opinion then was overwhelmingly in favour of the US attack although the UN itself decried the trend of taking action against the spirit of the UN charter. It has to be understood that President Bush and American public in general look at the developing UN scenario from the point of view of a traumatised nation that the rest of the world no longer feels at one with. The 9/11 tragedy has changed the world but it has also changed the thinking of the United States to such a degree that it now stands alone. President Bush faces a moment of decision. If he backs off, he faces a backlash within the US that will damage his prospects for a second term in office. If he invades Iraq, he will have to do a lot of arm-twisting at the level of individual states, putting to test his country’s superpower status as never before. In that case, Pakistan will have to tread even more carefully to protect its self-interests than some of the US’s other allies. *