THESE are dire days for Britain. The possibility of getting majority support for any UN resolution which, whatever its terms and wording, is designed to give authority to war is very small indeed. Perhaps a sufficient number of the swing states can be “persuaded” by the United States to join Spain and Bulgaria in what is now being cynically called “the coalition of the unwilling”, but it is unlikely. Even if, somehow, the necessary nine votes can be coralled, it is unthinkable that China, France, Germany and Russia would be among them. So is it thinkable that Britain should join the United States in military action when such powerful voices are raised against it? Wouldn't this be “unreasonable”, to use Mr Blair's favourite phrase about inconvenient voting in the Security Council? Yesterday's meeting of the Security Council was the most dramatic I can remember, not because of Dr Blix's low-key report, but on account of the way in which the French and Russian representatives in particular warned that a resolution authorising war would “not be allowed” and France proposed that a summit of world leaders should immediately be called at the UN to discuss how the international community should order its affairs better in the future. None of this will worry Washington in the short-term - President Bush will go his own way - but yesterday may in time be seen as a watershed in the history of the United Nations.


The content of comment is the opinion of users and netizens and not of

Comments contrary to laws, which are libellous, illegal or harmful to others are not permitted'); - reserves the right to remove any inappropriate comments.


Please remember that you are responsible for everything that you write and that data which are legally required can be made available to the relevant public authorities and courts; these data being name, email, IP of your computer as well as information accessible through the systems.

* Mandatory fields

Currently there are no comments.