Stardate 20030522.1627

(On Screen): Hope springs eternal in Tony Blair's heart. It remains part of his hopes that the UK can continue to serve as a "bridge across the Atlantic", which of course would give the UK special place within the European constellation. So with passage today of UNSC resolution 1483 lifting the sanctions against Iraq, Blair declared that the transatlantic rift is healing.

"It's been a very important day in the United Nations because the international community has come back together," Blair told a news conference with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at celebrations for his Social Democrats' 140th anniversary.

"We've provided a vital role for the United Nations in the reconstruction of Iraq and that is good for the Iraqi people obviously. It is also good for the international community."

"It's extremely important that we put the past behind us now and move forward as one unified international community. Today's resolution gives us the opportunity of doing that...not just for the future of Iraq but for the wider world," he said.

And he views this as a success for him personally and a vindication of his policies.

I suppose so, in a sense. But I think rather it's something else. In March, a fundamental question got answered. The question was: can the power of the UN actually be used to prevent the United States from doing something its government truly feels is necessary? The answer, of course, was "no". What today really proved was that this message has gotten through, loud and clear. The United States has now clearly demonstrated that it will not yield up its sovereignty to the UN if the government of the US feels that this would be counter to vital national interests.

By being willing once again to attempt to deal with the UN (which may well have been at Blair's behest), the Bush administration has indicated that it's still willing to operate in the international sphere and participate in UNSC processes and other "multilateralist" venues, to some extent. We haven't yet given up on that process entirely. Indeed, by making changes in the proposed resolution at the request of other nations on the Council, we demonstrated we're even willing to be "reasonable". But no substantive changes were made, and there was a clear message inherent in the entire process: We'll compromise, a bit, and we'll work with you, a little, as long as you recognize the limits to your position and know your place. But screw with us again and we walk, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it.

There were other messages delivered, too, to more specific addressees. US Ambassador Howard Leach has been talking to business leaders in France and to the newspapers there, and has delivered a very clear message:

"I have been telling the French business leaders I meet that contracts would be honoured, that they should not fear economic retribution and that the climate will improve, provided there is not another clash in the UN Security Council," Leach said.

But in the event of a renewed disagreement over a US-drafted resolution on postwar Iraq, Leach said: "I would indeed be concerned about the state of our relations, including in economic matters."

"That is why it is so important that our two countries succeed in working together on the international stage," he said.

Which is to say, that is why it is so important for France's business leaders to make sure that Chirac understands that we're not going to put up with any more French grandstanding. "Work together" means to accept the reality of the UN's power: that it doesn't really have very much, and that it is not a world government and isn't going to become one. But if Chirac once again tries to overplay his hand and becomes intoxicated with delusions of grandeur, the US is going to come down on France hard, and it's going to hurt a lot, especially in the French wallet.

And it's entirely possible there were some private messages delivered to certain leaders regarding interesting things found in captured Iraqi archives which could be revealed publicly if cooperation was not forthcoming.

Of course, diplomacy is always successful, and representatives of the weasel governments are all portraying it as a vindication of their own policies, or as a positive act on their part. Germany's UN ambassador said, "In this resolution, we have left behind the divisions of the past for the sake of the people of Iraq." (Altruism is always wonderful cover.) France's ambassador took satisfaction in the simple fact of unanimity. Russia's ambassador took pains to emphasize the fact that everyone made compromises.

All of this disguises the reality: the US (and UK and Spain, but the decisions were really made here) was willing to give away some small points to provide those other nations diplomatic cover, and was willing to engage in a brief period of what looked like negotiations, but refused to make any big compromises or submit to denial-by-delay. CNN summarizes the effect of the current resolution as the following bullet points: