In a clear sign that the criticism of France and Germany has the blessing of Downing Street, Peter Mandelson warned last night that the US would behave "like a sheriff and his posse" sorting out the world's problems if Europe refuses to engage with Washington.
Would it not be more honest if the US-UK withdrew their resolution and replaced it with one declaring Iraq to be in a state of outlawry?
I continue to believe that we are seeing case law hammered out about the legal basis of the emerging global empire. Outlawry was a legal concept early in the formation of the nation state that placed an individual outside the protection of the law.
A British minister declined at the weekend to accept the proposition that regime change is illegal under international law, that at present respects the sovereign rights of states, even if you dislike them. He said he thought international law changes. I agree.
The stage we have reached is that the Security Council is not willing to endorse a conquest of Iraq at this stage merely because it does not like or trust the Iraqi regime, as all last alternatives have not been exhausted to oblige Iraq to implement previous resolutions.
The threat that Mandelson and the British government is pointing to is that the US will go it alone, without even having the title of Sheriff, except by default. The more honest resolution would be one asking the Security Council to accept that Iraq under Saddam is in a state of outlawry.
It would probably have no greater chance of being passed by the Security Council, but I suggest it would better reflect where imperialist power politics have got to. Certainly if the US and UK go it alone, they might be wise to ensure they appear to the sceptical population of the world to act as sheriffs and not as gangsters. It might be more difficult than they imagine.
Chris Burford London
