Untitled Document

But North Korea has no oil
NEW YORK - A cartoon in an American newspaper last week portrayed an angry US President telling a news conference: "We will have to get THAT homicidal maniac." One smart reporter pops up from his seat and asks Bush the seemingly glib question: "Which one?"

As far as the US was concerned, there were three "homicidal maniacs" in and out of town last week: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, North Korean President Kim Jong Il and, until Thursday, the so-called "Beltway Sniper" who targeted and killed 10 people at random terrorising the capital of Washington DC and its two neighbouring states, Virginia and Maryland.

With one "maniac" now in custody, the US is still stuck with two, one who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction and the other who admits he has an active nuclear weapons programme.

The dilemma for President George W. Bush is: who is more dangerous to the US and the world at large - North Korea or Iraq? One US commentator says - rather cynically - that the only way to resolve the problem is for the US to actively promote a war between North Korea and Iraq: two for the price of one.

Two former presidential National Security Advisers - Henry Kissinger, a Republican, and Zbigniew Brezezinsky, a Democrat - have publicly declared that North Korea poses a "significantly greater military threat" to the US than Iraq.

But then North Korea has no oil, and unlike Iraq, it has no oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia. And North Korea, with an army of 1.08 million soldiers and potentially nuclear-armed, may be far more difficult to contain militarily than Iraq with 424,000 soldiers.

The North Koreans can wipe out a good part of neighbouring South Korea, and also militarily threaten Japan - two countries that are strong American allies and home to thousands of US soldiers on protective duty.

And perhaps more importantly, North Korea's conventional and nuclear weapons programmes have been directly or indirectly supported by three of American's new-found allies: China, Russia and Pakistan.

So the US is pushing for a diplomatic option with North Korea and a military option with Iraq even though the White House may be convinced that the former is more lethal than the latter.

The US is also not in a position to antagonise either Russia or China, two permanent members of the Security Council whose vetoes it has to avoid to adopt a UN resolution justifying a military attack on Iraq.

After nearly four weeks of closed-door negotiations, the US introduced a draft resolution last week which implicitly provides Washington a legal basis for a military attack on Iraq if Baghdad is in "material breach" of its obligations to cooperate with UN arms inspectors in their search for weapons of mass destruction.

The draft says that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face "serious consequences" as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. The strongest support for the American resolution has come from Britain, but the remaining three veto-wielding members, namely China, France and Russia, have expressed reservations. They are challenging the right of the United States to justify a military attack on Iraq if it refuses to cooperate with UN arms inspectors. Instead, they want Washington to come back to the Security Council for a second resolution authorising the use of military force. As of Friday, the US draft was still under discussion. But the US is not likely to force a vote until early next week. The resolution can be adopted only with nine affirmative votes and no vetoes in the 15-member Security Council.

To get the nine affirmative votes, the US has been feverishly lobbying the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council who have suddenly assumed importance far in excess of their size, geography or their gross domestic product (GDP).

Of the 10, the US seems assured of at least eight: Bulgaria, Colombia, Guinea, Norway, Cameroon, Singapore, Ireland and Mexico. The only two holdouts may be Syria and Mauritius. With its own vote, and that of Britain, the US is assured of 10 affirmatives among the 15 members. But it has to avoid a veto either from China, Russia or France to survive.

If all three abstain, the US will have safe passage for its resolution by next week. Or, alternatively, if the resolution is vetoed, the US will still go to war thereby threatening the very credibility and relevance of the United Nations and its mandate to bring peace and stability to the world at large.

Back to Columns