Return to Lesson Plan
Even the most committed pacifist might feel a twinge of empathy for the United States, Britain and Spain — sponsors of a deadline-setting, war-launching and now apparently moot resolution on Iraq, submitted to the United Nations Security Council three weeks ago. It's one thing, after all, to be stonewalled by France, which promised a veto, or by Germany, which, while lacking veto status, has long opposed the American war posture. Russia threatened a veto as well, but at least Russia, like France and Germany, is sort of . . . big.
But Cameroon? Almost from the start, it was among the Security Council's fence-riders — Guinea, Chile, Angola, Mexico and Pakistan, as well as Cameroon — upon whom anything resembling United Nations backing for war in Iraq rested. Nine of the council's 15 members must approve a resolution for passage, although a veto by any of the five permanent members would nix it. But nine supporting votes, or even a simple majority of eight, the administration seemed to reason, might still look like a mandate, veto or not.
So began a diplomatic opera of odd courtships, arm-twisting, compromises and back-room deal-making that thrust a few of the world's bit players, all short-timers on the council, into starring roles.
Not that anything was asked of, offered to or taken away from them. "The president is not offering quid pro quos," the White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, told reporters after the resolution was submitted. He was asked if deals were on the table. "You're saying that the leaders of other nations are buyable," he said, "and that is not an acceptable proposition."
Yet the six nations in limbo were surely mindful that in 1990, minutes after joining Cuba in rejecting the resolution authorizing force against Iraq, Yemen was told by an American diplomat that it would be "the most expensive `no' vote" it had ever cast. Soon after, the United States cut off Yemen's $70 million aid package.
At a press briefing on Wednesday, the State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, responded to questions about the give-and-take this time around. "We have relationships with these places, we have aid programs with these places, we have high-level discussions and visits with these countries," he said. "The fact that those things go on is not a surprise to anyone."
But, he added, "When we discuss what's going on in the Security Council, we discuss what's going on in the Security Council, that the Security Council decisions need to be based on their merits by the countries that take on this responsibility. We have relationships with these countries that we do work to improve. But that is also part of our broader relationship."
Those broader relationships run the gamut, from the minor patronage afforded Guinea and Cameroon, to a pending trade pact with Chile, to the close economic and social ties linking Mexico and the United States. Mexico, for example, has long sought more favorable immigration deals with the United States.
"I don't expect for there to be significant retribution from the government," President Bush told reporters two weeks ago, when asked if a Mexican "no" vote would strain relations. "I expect Mexico to be with us."
Hispanic Democrats in Congress called this a threat. The White House denounced their charge as partisan.
In any case, none of the levers appear to have worked, if applied at all. At week's end, Bulgaria remained the only other Security Council member supporting the three-week-old resolution, which stipulated tomorrow as the deadline for Iraq's compliance. A British compromise plan fudged that deadline, and the Bush administration indicated that the Monday cut-off could be somewhat flexible if nine votes were possible. But on Friday, this outcome remained far from certain. Instead, Chile offered its own proposal, Guinea said it might abstain and the leaders of the United States, Britain and Spain announced plans to meet in the Azores, off Portugal, to discuss the situation.