The UN's last chance

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Current News - Homefront Preparations : One Thread

THE U.N.'S LAST CHANCE

December 3, 2002 -- WHEN Saddam Hussein fails to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, will Iraq's backers on the U.N. Security Council - that is, Russia and France - admit it?

They'll have to - because the American people support President Bush.

On Nov. 5, Bush won an astonishing victory in the midterm congressional elections. Instead of losing seats, as every incumbent president had done since Kennedy, he gained them.

On Nov. 8, the Security Council voted unanimously (yes, even France) to approve a resolution giving Iraq a "last chance" to comply with U.N. demands that it shed its weapons of mass destruction, or face the consequences. The vote came after months of French and Russian opposition to American and British proposals to force Iraq to disarm and threaten military action should it not do so.

Do you think those events aren't connected? Were you born yesterday?

France and Russia were waiting for the results of the U.S. elections before they voted to give Bush what he wants on Iraq. Had the balloting favored the Democrats, have no doubt that the resolution would not have passed or would have been watered down to a point where it was unrecognizable.

Too often, we assume that diplomats don't read newspapers. We judge foreign policy as divorced and removed from American political affairs. Nonsense. The two are intimately connected, the one feeding off the other.

France and Russia stalled in their negotiations with Secretary of State Colin Powell to check out whether Bush had the American people behind him. Every commentator had explained that presidents normally lose strength in the midterm elections; both nations were counting on Bush losing power.

When he confounded their expectations, they folded. Even Syria jumped on the bandwagon and backed the resolution.

The reason this history lesson is relevant is that it indicates the powerful position the United States has as it enters the final power game in the Security Council.

Each passing day will bring new evidence of Iraqi violations of the intent and the language of the United Nations' resolution. Iraq has already demonstrated its contempt for the resolution by firing on U.S. and British planes. Soon, it will doubtless impose restrictions on inspections and lie about its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.

How should the United States react to these violations? Should we bide our time and let the evidence of Iraqi malfeasance mount? Or should we go before the Security Council and demand a resolution authorizing the use of force?

This is a judgment call President Bush must make after hearing the advice of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others. They need to understand, as they weigh this crucial decision, how important the U.S. election result was to the Russian and French decisions to cave in and back the U.S./British version of the Security Council resolution.

Beyond this consideration lies the fundamental conundrum facing Paris and Moscow. Neither capital is capable of military action to obstruct American initiatives in the Persian Gulf. The most Presidents Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin can do is talk.

But who will listen? It is only through their Security Council veto that either has any power to command a global audience. Otherwise, who cares what the French think?

Will they help us invade Iraq? No. Do we need their assistance? No. It is only the veto that empowers them.

But should the United Nations become irrelevant to the decision about U.S. military action, it will lose all its power. It is only by regulating American involvement that the United Nations can retain its dignity and role in global affairs. If America must unilaterally enforce U.N. resolutions because the Security Council is blocked by a French or Russian veto, who needs the United Nations?

The United States was once reputed to have never lost a war or won a peace conference. We lost Vietnam. But we still haven't had a peace conference work out right. We tend to underestimate our power at each diplomatic juncture.

Let us realize that the U.S. election results and the U.N. desire for ongoing relevance give us a huge advantage as we contemplate how to deal with Saddam's obstructionism and delay.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2002


Moderation questions? read the FAQ