There are a couple of reasons I believe the US is pursuing the issue of Iraq. We have seen numerous examples in the last ten years of the UN failing to take decisive action to prevent genocides and general racial or political oppression. In case after case, in Yugoslavia, Africa, and the Middle East, dictators and thugs have gone about their criminal and often grizzly tasks of killing and oppression with little fear of intervention by an impotent United Nations. Yes, impotent, and made so by the very diversity of culture, values, and national interests of the nations that belong to it. My own belief is that President Bush decided to push the Iraqi issue to either finally make the UN relevant, or to prove it irrelevant and unworthy of further support by this country. I believe he hoped the UN would just this once say, “Enough is enough,” and act decisively to remove Saddam from power. If the UN could do this, and free the Iraqi people from his tyranny, then perhaps the next time it was challenged by a dictator or ethnic cleansing the mere threat of “decisive action” would actually give the perpetrators pause to reconsider their chosen course of action.
And it almost worked. The US’ pledge to act with or without UN sanction resulted in the unanimous passage of UN resolution no. 1441 last November. This was to be the Iraqi dictator’s last chance for cooperative disarmament, and promised “serious consequences” if he failed to comply fully and eagerly. That, coupled with the US/UK military buildup forced the Iraqi despot to agree to 1441. Does anyone out there believe for a moment that the UN would have enacted 1441 last November, or that Iraq would have accepted it, if George Bush (and PM Blair, who’s own support can not be understated in importance) had not made his speech to the UN…and backed it up by deploying forces to the region? The problem of course is, once you commit to such a course of action you may be required to follow through on your pledge. If you don’t, than no one will ever take you seriously again. Unfortunately, it appears certain member nations of the Security Council don’t understand this. Bush, however, does.
As we have seen, Baghdad immediately began testing the resolve of the Security Council. When Blix made his first report to the Council, which in essence said that Iraq was not complying with resolution 1441, that was the point the UN could have averted the war I believe is just weeks away. They could have joined together to declare Iraq in material breach, and passed a second resolution authorizing military action after a certain short deadline passed, giving Iraq only until then to change their attitude in dramatic and meaningful ways. Saddam remembers the last time the UN issued a deadline, and another such decree might just have been taken more seriously than the French, German, and Russian battle cry, “give the inspectors more time.” Saddam instead has seen the UN for what it. He has continued to doll out empty promises and little dribbles of “apparent increases of cooperation” on the eve of each new report deadline. In this way, Blix has been forced to qualify any negative aspects of his reports with words such as “possible change in attitude” and “signs of increased cooperation.” Saddam knows full well that as long as he throws out these little tidbits, countries like France and Russia will greedily seize upon them to prevent the UN from acting.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi people continue to suffer at the hands of their own government, and other potential despots and tyrants are emboldened to forsake even the trappings of civilization, for who will stop them?
Why did President Bush choose Iraq for this litmus test of the UN? First, the last ten years of Iraqi defiance of the UN was the firmest bedrock he could find to build a case on. Second, the events of 9/11 woke up the world to what could happen if certain elements got a hold of WMD such as Iraq has most certainly been developing. It highlights the threat Iraq posses to not only its neighbors, but to the world at large. Third, maintaining the sanctions and no-fly zones on Iraq, are not only costly in and of themselves, but are also proving ineffective in forcing Iraq to reform itself. How many thousands in Iraq have died at Saddam’s orders, or have suffered deprivations to build his palaces and rebuild his military and WMD arsenals. Finally, both President Bush and to a great extent the American people see the whole Iraqi problem as unfinished business.
Blix has as much as stated that inspections will not result in a disarmed Iraq, if Iraq is intent on hiding WMD from the inspectors. He has said specifically that more inspectors are not the answer. Only if Iraq embraces the disarmament process, enthusiastically, publicly, and honestly as South Africa did, can there be any hope that inspectors will be able to verify Iraq if free of WMD. There is no sign that Saddam intends to do so, so removing Saddam is the only way to end the suffering of Iraq while insuring that country is no longer a threat to world peace and stability.
