Some commentators are counting the start to war in hours.

Russia and France are expecting to use their veto on the Iraq motion, in a debate starting at 3pm GMT.

After that, Bush is going to address the US tonight, giving Saddam a few hours to quit Iraq.

I don't see exile as the likely outcome, although Saddam has gone for brinkmanship before now. There's nothing to stop him grabbing x billion dollars and skipping off to some tropical island somewhere - it's either that or he dies. Does anyone really believe that the US wants him put on trial for war crimes committed using American chemical weapons, with the support of many in the current Bush administration?

This time tomorrow, we could be at war, and the UN could be going down the pan.


Consequences for Britain
This leaves me in an odd position - I support a war to overthrow Saddam (even if it is 15 years too late - it was the anniversary of Halabja yesterday), yet I also think it's wrong to go against the UN.

The main flaw in the UN, in this kind of situation, isn't the use of the veto, but the very existence of the veto. Basically, the winners of World War II said, 'Let's set up this new league of na... er, united nations, where every country is equal, and no one country can threaten the rest in the way that Germany did.' Then they went and thought about it, and added, 'But some countries should be more equal than others.'

The five main winners of World War II each hold a veto and a permanent position on the UN Security Council. This means that they are the ultimate authority over any security decisions made by the United Nations. They're effectively above the law, but because they've been split along east-west lines until now, barely anyone's cared.

Now, with a warmonger in the White House, plus one of the former 'Western Three' turning on the other two and aligning with the former Big Red Menace, the main failing of the UN's primary objective - to prevent conflict - is in danger of failing. The League Of Nations collapsed and started World War II.

That's not going to happen here - Iraq is isolated and without anyone willing to pitch in against someone as overwhelmingly powerful as the US war machine (ignoring the threats from North Korea - if that's a safe thing to do...), the fact that diplomacy has evolved somewhat since the imperialist days pre-1950, and the knowledge that a global war will turn nuclear, there's no risk of a World War One-style everybody-declares-war-on-everyone-else domino effect.

It could destroy the UN's authority though. There is no way the US or UK can be punished for starting a war in defiance of a UN Security Council decision, because the US and UK are the UN Security Council. Sanctions? Veto. Expulsion? Veto (and probably what the US wants anyway - although that would leave Israel hanging in the wind). Censure? Veto, and pretty meaningless anyway.


Replacing the UN
So, if the UN does go bye-bye, what's next?

The UN performs a lot of vital functions - aid agencies, health stuff, co-ordinating economic stuff - but on security issues, it's hopelessly skewed towards the permanent members. 'This is our club, we make the rules.'

The only viable alternative would be (and yes, I've even come up with a name), the World Forum. It's basically the same as the UN, but the Security Council consists of thirteen countries, cycling through sequentially, in a random order (you know, random, but if you've been picked before, you don't get to do it until everyone else has had a go).

Importantly, the only veto is in the hands of the membership.

In the event of a united Security Council that is pitched against the rest of the WF membership, the members could then decide to override the Security Council resolution. What, a two thirds majority against the Security Council decision could act as a reasonable check and balance, couldn't it, while reducing the likelihood of a major power gathering so many smaller countries to back it up that it is possible for one member to override the Security Council 'by itself'.

(And I'll be the Secretary-General, if no one minds...)