LONDON -- It is unlikely that the split over whether to go to war with Iraq will do Iraqi President Saddam Hussein much good, as U.S. President George W. Bush appears intent on unleashing hostilities however widespread the opposition to conflict. But it will certainly do the new world order which was supposed to have emerged after the first Persian Gulf War a great deal of damage, potentially terminal.
Important as the war itself is, the collateral damage being wrought on international institutions and alliances is even greater. With U.N. Security Council members disagreeing as never before, the United Nations is caught in the middle of the split between the United States and Britain, on one side, and the France-Russia-China-German group on the other. Instead of being the forum that brings nations together, it is the stage for a deepening divide sharpened by the intense lobbying of swing states in Africa and Latin America.
The half-century-old primacy of the veto wielded by permanent members of the Security Council is at stake, bringing with it possible serious consequences for the future. Washington's doubts about the U.N. have been considerably reinforced. Though it is not in keeping with international political correctness, the crisis has thrown into stark relief the way in which small, undemocratic countries can, by the chance of the rotating seat system, determine the final decision.