Artículo de David M. Malone en "The International Herald Tribune" del 2-2-03

Iraq I

New York.

 Nobody now can doubt that the United States intends to proceed with military action against Iraq. The grim report placed before the United Nations Security Council this week by the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is clear: Iraq is providing access but no substantive cooperation in disarming. .President George W. Bush has reset the Security Council's clock. Secretary of State Colin Powell will be dispatched to New York next Wednesday to start the push to authorize use of force against Iraq. It is likely the council will give its approval, although it may take some weeks. .Foreign governments note that Powell, their best advocate in Washington, has closed ranks with other senior figures in the Bush administration. Now that military action is certain - barring a flight of Saddam Hussein into exile (possible at the last minute) or his overthrow in Baghdad (unlikely) - foreign capitals will be straining to support Washington. .No government today wants to oppose Washington gratuitously. Vital national interests everywhere include having the best possible relationship with the United States. Concern at the United Nations is much greater now over the post-conflict phase in Iraq - for which U.S. planning is, at best, opaque - than over war itself. .The chief dynamic in the Security Council since the end of the Cold War has been one of cooperation among its five permanent members - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France. They have been split seriously only twice: over Kosovo, briefly in 1999, and over Iraq, on and off, since 1998. .China and Russia have both been forging stronger ties with America. This leaves France, which last year cast itself as the champion of international legitimacy as enshrined in the UN charter. France induced the United States into a lengthy negotiation over the terms of a strong new mandate for UN inspectors in Iraq. Both sides compromised heavily in gaining unanimous council support. France's status internationally was greatly enhanced, but so was that of the United States, which showed that it could be sensitive to the views of allies. .France will not want the United States to bypass the council in coming weeks, which would undermine the council's role and devalue France's permanent seat and veto. Paris will also be reluctant to be dealt out of the new balance of influence in the Middle East that will arise from changes in Iraq. Finally, France may not want to contribute further to the crisis in the supposedly common European defense and foreign policy that a bust-up over Iraq will exacerbate. .Powell must share as much intelligence as possible with the Security Council in an effort to help skeptical governments to move in America's direction. Bullying France is unlikely to be effective; allowing France to re-engineer its position gently is more likely to work. .The American public wants company in an attack on Iraq. While Britain, Spain, Italy and Australia will support the American military in several ways under any circumstances if the United States attacks Iraq, the participation of a wider set of allies and partners will require Security Council cover. A council resolution would also help Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who is politically exposed at home. .The nine affirmative votes out of the 15 required, assuming no vetoes, have not yet been lined up. But a successful U.S. and British effort to secure Security Council authorization looks likely. .The writer, a former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, is president of the International Peace Academy in New York.