UN Security Council: Not as awful as George Will imagines

My instinct is to leave all commentary on Georgia to the professionals, but a quick note on George Will's column this morning and, more specifically, his claim that "this crisis illustrates, redundantly, the paralysis of the United Nations regarding major powers, hence regarding major events." To quote his UN paragraphs:

On ABC's "This Week," Richardson, auditioning to be Barack Obama's running mate, disqualified himself. Clinging to the Obama campaign's talking points like a drunk to a lamppost, Richardson said that this crisis proves the wisdom of Obama's zest for diplomacy and that America should get the U.N. Security Council "to pass a strong resolution getting the Russians to show some restraint." Apparently Richardson was ambassador to the United Nations for 19 months without noticing that Russia has a Security Council veto.

This crisis illustrates, redundantly, the paralysis of the United Nations regarding major powers, hence regarding major events, and the fictitiousness of the European Union regarding foreign policy. Does this disturb Obama's serenity about the efficacy of diplomacy? Obama's second statement about the crisis, in which he tardily acknowledged Russia's invasion, underscored the folly of his first, which echoed the Bush administration's initial evenhandedness.

It is true that the Security Council met that night, and it is true that the meeting ended in a stalemate over a joint press statement (not at all binding and certainly not a resolution!), but not because Russia proved too hot to handle. Russia called the meeting and drafted the press statement, which Georgia rejected as one-sided.

The trouble with Georgia's accusation of one-sidedness (which was then backed up by France) is that the Russian draft did nothing more than express "serious concern at the escalation of violence," call on all sides to "cease bloodshed without delay" and "renounce the use of force." The third, it seems, was the sticking point for the Georgia-France side.

Five minute version of the Friday night fight here; clip includes Lee's speculation on why "renounce the use of force" might have been a controversial phrase. (Summary: Georgia would probably be willing to renounce the use of force, but not for free. It's a chip in its negotiations, and to renounce force at this point would lead immediately to the breakaways saying, "Great! When do we get our independence?") I'd be curious to hear alternate interpretations.