I would like to take issue with the tortured logic presented in the editorial “U.S. must give Iraq time, option to comply with U.N. resolutions” (ODE, Oct. 8).
The editorial argues that the United States should accept the compromise proffered by France of two new U.N. Security Council resolutions, the first of which “would demand complete (Iraqi) disarmament and inspections to force compliance.”
How is this new? The Security Council has renewed its demand for the Iraqi regime to disarm and fully cooperate with weapons inspectors no less than 12 times to date without results: Twice in 1991 within months of the cease-fire, once in 1994, twice in 1996, three times in 1997, three more times in 1998, and again in 1999.
Not one of these demands from the Security Council has ever included the threat of swift military action in the event of non-compliance, and this new French compromise doesn’t either, it appears. According to the editorial, that minor bit of awkwardness is perhaps left to a “second resolution that would enumerate the consequences of renewed stonewalling.” This is merely a dodge and amounts to nothing more than first-degree political cowardice.
The editorial states that U.S. enforcement of U.N. resolutions would (somehow) undermine the U.N.’s authority. Isn’t that backwards? Wouldn’t U.S. enforcement of U.N. resolutions restore U.N. authority?
The editorial states that if Saddam Hussein disarms to the satisfaction of the United Nations, that “everyone would win — the world could avoid war, Hussein’s power would be preserved, and the sanctions would end.”
How is Saddam remaining in power in any way even remotely a win for anybody except Saddam? What is it about the notion of regime-change in Iraq that is so distasteful to the editorial board?
And what is it about the United Nations that makes the editorial board get misty? The group has no claim to altruism. It is utterly wrong to think that the United Nations is where the nations of the world come together, put aside their petty self interests and do what is best for humanity.
Russia and France are each cravenly eager to profit from Iraqi oil. And the United Nations itself is holding some $21 billion in profits from the oil for food program in U.N.-administered bank accounts — a conflict of interest if ever there was one. No wonder these entities are eager to preserve the status-quo in Baghdad.
Meanwhile, Kofi Annan lost his credibility long ago. Recall February 1998 when Saddam’s intransigence over weapons inspections nearly precipitated an international crisis: Kofi Annan aided and abetted the Iraqi dictator in thwarting UNSCOM inspections when he promised that “U.N. arms inspectors should in the future be more respectful,” that UNSCOM would quit “embarrassing the Iraqi government in front of its own people,” and arranged for diplomatic baby-sitters for the inspectors.
By what reason in morality or justice must a government which has pursued Jeffersonian democracy for over 200 years need a permission slip from the United Nations to preemptively attack a murderous tyrant in order to prevent the brutal slaughter of its own citizens? After all, nobody elected the United Nations.