Let the U.N. Vote
Wednesday, October 23, 2002; Page A26
Washington Post Editorial
NEARLY SIX weeks have passed since President Bush challenged the United
Nations to act to enforce its resolutions on Iraq. Yet there has been no
action. Instead, in its attempt to build support in the U.N. Security
Council, the Bush administration has made a series of significant
concessions. Though renewed U.N. inspections almost certainly would not
ensure Iraqi disarmament -- and might provide Saddam Hussein with months or
years of additional time to build up his arsenal -- the United States has
agreed to try them again. It has also dropped its demand that a new U.N.
resolution explicitly authorize force in the event of continued Iraqi
noncompliance, and removed some of the toughest elements from its proposed
inspection scheme. In effect, President Bush has risked the indefinite
delay or evisceration of his campaign to eliminate the Iraqi threat in
order to build a broad international coalition and preserve the authority
of the United Nations. We believe the risk was worth taking. Yet the U.S.
resolution is being resisted, still, by France and Russia, two permanent
Security Council members that appear determined to block or fatally weaken
any American-led initiative. It is time to call their bluff and ask the
Security Council to vote.
The Franco-Russian obstructionism cannot be understood as a response to the
Bush administration's hawkishness on Iraq, its doctrine of preemption or
its drift toward unilateralism. Paris and Moscow have been championing the
cause of Saddam Hussein in the Security Council since long before the
election of George W. Bush. The two governments now portray themselves as
advocates of Iraqi disarmament and U.N. inspections; but for much of the
1990s, their explicit aim was to weaken or abolish U.N. inspections and
remove all U.N. sanctions on Iraq -- positions that helped their
businessmen to win lucrative new contracts and their governments to harvest
popular acclaim in the Arab world, at the expense of the United States.
Presidents Jacques Chirac of France and Vladimir Putin of Russia are still
playing the same cynical game, only now they would strike a pose as the
only restraint on the aggressiveness of the hegemonistic United States, and
as champions of the rule of international law. Never mind that both
countries have never hesitated to dispatch their forces for foreign
interventions where their interests were threatened, with or without U.N.
approval. In fact, even as Mr. Chirac was proclaiming the sanctity of the
United Nations' authority over war-making, some 1,000 French troops were
intervening unilaterally to protect French interests in Ivory Coast; Paris
never dreamed of forging an international coalition or consulting the
Security Council.
France and Russia aspire to use their places on the Security Council,
granted a half-century ago, to wield influence they otherwise would not
have at the opening of the 21st century. Yet now they risk destroying the
very institution that serves them, along with any hope that the United
Nations will play a meaningful role in a war on terrorism likely to
dominate global affairs for years to come. They already have succeeded in
slowing and tempering the Bush administration's campaign on Iraq; now they
must decide whether they are ultimately to stand with the United States or
Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration should put its resolution to a
vote. If it fails, it should be clear that responsibility for the failure
of multilateralism lies not with the hawks of Washington but with the
naysayers of Paris and Moscow.
� 2002 The Washington Post Company
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
A French-Russian Veto?
Time to call the bluff of Paris and Moscow at the U.N.
Wall St. Journal Editorial
Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT
President Bush is a patient man, maybe too patient judging by his tolerance
for the continuing shenanigans of France and Russia in the U.N. Security
Council. The two nations formerly known as great powers are blocking any
U.S.-British resolution tough enough to disarm Saddam Hussein.
We understand the uses of diplomacy, but enough is enough. It's been five
weeks since Mr. Bush asked the U.N. to act, time is running out on the
prime winter season for military action in Iraq, and sooner or later Mr.
Bush has an obligation to end this pas de Chirac and call the French and
Russian bluff. The U.S. should put a blunt, forceful declaration in front
of the Security Council, and see if its members really want to veto it.
Such an ultimatum will at least force France and Russia to declare whose
side they're really on. As it stands now they can have it both ways,
pretending that they are friends of the U.S., while working behind the
scenes to protect Saddam by strangling any weapons inspections in delay and
diplomatic excuses.
Perhaps the French, with their usual hauteur, aren't taking Mr. Bush
seriously. Only yesterday the President repeated his earlier promises that
"if the United Nations can't make its mind up, if Saddam Hussein won't
disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him for the sake of peace." He
also said this week, realistically enough, that he doubts Saddam will agree
to any serious inspections regime. But the French and Russians are behaving
as if they still think Mr. Bush will change his mind, notwithstanding the
recent overwhelming vote of support from the U.S. Congress.
What explains this curious double-game? Less high moral principle, we
suspect, than old-fashioned cash. The Russian oil giant Lukoil has
contracts with Iraq's current government, and Russia's government has $8
billion in Iraqi debt it wants repaid. The French communications company
Alcatel and auto makers Renault and Peugeot have also done good business in
Iraq in recent years. And French oil company TotalFinaElf has exclusive
rights to develop the Bin Umar and Manjoon oil fields. Perhaps these
companies fear that a post-Saddam Iraq government might not look kindly on
those who supported its former oppressors.
The French, to be sure, also have a long history in Iraq and don't want to
cede that area of influence to the upstart Americans. Under the mythic
Charles de Gaulle, France withdrew from North Africa--abandoning, in his
words, "the limited oil of the Sahara for the much more plentiful oil of
Arabia"--and established close ties throughout the Middle East, especially
with Saddam's Baath Party in Iraq. ("Iraq is really the key to your Arab
policy," an influential adviser told de Gaulle.)
None other than current French President Jacques Chirac was instrumental in
cementing that relationship under de Gaulle's successors, Georges Pompidou
and Valery Giscard d'Estaing. France built the Osirak nuclear reactor,
which Israel helped the world by destroying in 1981. And by 1989 an
estimated half of French arms production went to Iraq. At least by the time
of the Gulf War, then French President Francois Mitterrand understood that
France's broader interest lay in being on the winning side and supported
the U.S.-led coalition.
We'd guess that the same thing would happen today if Mr. Chirac is really
forced to choose. The same goes for Russia, which has more to gain from a
deepening friendship with America than it does from holding on to a doomed
Iraqi dictator. With Mr. Bush intent on acting with or without the U.N., a
Security Council veto would invite American enmity but still wouldn't save
their business with Iraq. And far from reviving Gaullist or Soviet
grandeur, a veto would only underscore French and Russian irrelevance in
world affairs.
We'd add that a veto would also deal a major blow to the credibility of the
U.N. Mr. Bush has challenged that body to live up to its principles by
enforcing its own Iraq resolutions. If it fails despite Mr. Bush's pleas,
and the U.S. then liberates Iraq with a coalition of its own, that body
will look even more feckless than it already is.
Mr. Bush has already shown enormous deference to the U.N. But his first
duty is to protect the lives of American soldiers, and that means letting
them fight in winter, when they have the best chance of success. France and
Russia have had enough time to decide who their friends are.
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern
them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female;
own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of
freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the
duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common
calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.
-US National Security Policy, 2002
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
