Also today the 21 countries of the Arab League condemned the US attacks, but that was reported hardly anywhere.
Nor was there any attempt to seek a European Union view or a Commonwealth view.
Britain does not seem unduly worried about the suspension of diplomatic relations by Sudan, though it is being cautious in its comments.
What happened? Defeat was likely but we need to understand the mechanism of defeat, which is not clear yet, and the counter-currents that can still be exploited. Yesterday it was suggested that the Security Council debate might go on for several days. At lunch time today, it was suggested that the US would just brazen it out: with a line that this was terrorism, they were acting in self defence, and that they would have no intention of divulging their secret sources. Discussion of an investigative mission could easily get bogged down in procedural minutiae lasting for several weeks if not months.
Well, Russia, the ally Sudan hoped for on the S.C., is not in the strongest bargaining position at the moment. China seldom overplays its hand on the SC. Britain had got its deal worked out, and had felt no obligation to consult the Commonwealth or the European Union.
But this is not the first and won't be the last case and we can learn from this. The US has had to give some credence to a growing sense of the rule of law in international affairs. Today, somewhat surprisingly was the day for a hardline initiative by Britain and the US to propose a slight compromise in trial of Libyans suspected of bombing Panam flight 303 over Lockerbie, Scotland, 10 years ago: the innovation of holding a trial in another country.
The Sudanese government is generally accepted as having managed the media skilfully, and to have scored some points. Even before the UN SC decision, it announced it might go ahead with its own investigation. This now needs to be as authoritative as possible. A new international peace movement could have experts available for such occurrences, since there are bound to be some islamic backers capable of funding an investigation.
The media will publicise any report, and who knows it may become a clip in the historic feature of the rise and fall of Bill Clinton.
Dr Alistair Hay, Reader in Chemical Pathology at Leeds University, is quoted as saying that it will be difficult for an investigation to prove the allegation one way or another. The formula for VX gas has been suppressed so it is not possible to discuss any of the ingredients without exciting some attention. Essentially he argued in the Guardian that early precursors might be common to a number of chemical processes. But agents on the ground would have to prove the existence of complex precursors specific to the final stage of making VX gas. He argued that inspection by satellite could never prove this.
Therefore it is still important that this investigation goes ahead to establish some sort of impartiality in enforcing a rule of law on a global scale. It has to rely on monitors. who have political legitimacy.
That, Brad, is the same point about the Iraqi inspection conflict. Yes it is nominally under the control of the UN, but the majority of the inspectors are USA citizens. That is why Sadam Hussein has a shrewd point, which has attracted some sympathy from other SC members, for a wider representation on the supevisory panel.
On international law, Prof Chris Brown of University of Southampton has a letter in the Guardian (UK) arguing that the self-defence provisions in the Charter of the UN, in particular article 51, legitimate action if the Security Council is unwilling or unable to act, or in the face of an immediate threat, when delay could bring disaster. This could not apply to bombing of a chemical factory or training grounds.
This legal debate could play into the issue of the overdue reform of the Security Council to make it more representative.
Either way, the imperialists would be wise to be cautious. This evening CNN had an interview with one Milt Bearden, former CIA operative in Afghanistan ten years ago when the honeycomb of fortifications, bombed at the weekend, was financed by the US to undermine the Soviet Union. He is apparently author of a book called Black Tulip. While he said that anti-personnel bombs could catch unsuspecting numbers of people the first time, they would become more vigilant, and in terms of a strike to destroy the fortifications themselves, this was virtually impossible. He claimed that getting into such a war virtually alone cost the Soviet Union its empire.
Meanwhile the caution of the Taliban government may be a good sign in more ways than one. It is reported to have gagged bin Laden, while still protecting him. This will increase pressure for the US to operate within some sort of emerging international rule of law.
Finally the British government while loudly supporting the US against terrorism, and indicating through the chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee that it may expel terrorists, also failed itself to confirm the direct link between VX gas and the Shifa factrory and the same chair said he thought the site should be investigated. Even Blair had an implicit criticism: in relation to Ireland he specifically excluded the possibility of using the SAS to take out the last remaining Republican group dedicated to the armed struggle: while that is tempting, he said, in a world full of terrorism, we are a democratic country and we will follow the rule of law (sic).
Sick though the workings of any rule of law appear to have been on the Security Coundil tonight, it seems to me that triumph of US hegemony is not as unqualified as might seem at first. There are progressive openings. And even though it will be an uphill struggle a new coalition for world peace has to emerge, based on global civil society.
Chris Burford