Europeans always blamed the U.S. for not joining the League of Nations in the general condemnation of Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia.
Of course they should have done it themselves without the U.S. but that is in past. Yet, might the middle century have been different had the League of Nations mounted a blockade against Mussolini's supply of mustard gas to the North African continent?
This seems to me to be no mean analogy to the United Nations' strongly asserting their right to place competent and powerful Inspectors in Iraq.
If the United Nations fail to exert to their authority - backed as it is by threat of U.S. force - it will indeed disappear into the mists of history as did the League of Nations.
If the scenario that I have supported (backed as it is by 1 percent shrewdness and 99 percent hope) turns out to be what happens, then I suspect that the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Harry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen wrote:
Read Safire for whom he says will get what in a post-victory New Iraq. This column could be interpreted as a warning shot for diplomats in NYC, where the pressure is on to resolve the question of a tough new resolution in a matter of days . Karen Watters Cole
Also see Reserve Call-up May Equal 1991 @ <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/international/middleeast/28MILI.html>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/international/middleeast/28MILI.html.
'In Material Breach' By William Safire, NYT, 10.28.2002 @ <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/opinion/28SAFI.html>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/opinion/28SAFI.html
WASHINGTON -- If the U.N. Security Council fails to adopt a resolution holding Iraq "in material breach" of its many disarmament agreements, that refusal will have consequences for the U.N. and several of its member nations.
The State Department cannot say that, of course, because our diplomacy with Council members rests on persuasion, not threats. But should the U.N. deny the fact of Saddam's repeated and sustained defiance of its irresolute resolutions, the world body will henceforth play only in a little league of nations.
Every diplomat knows what "in material breach" means: as called for in the resolution put forward by the U.S. and Britain, that phrase clears the way for the liberation of Iraq. If Saddam does not promptly come into total compliance with no-nonsense inspections, we would have the useful, though not necessary, U.N. coloration for our overthrow of the outlaw regime.
Russia, France, China and Mexico lead the pack wanting to strip that triggering phrase from the declared U.S. position. If they succeed, their "no" votes would assert that Saddam is not in material breach of a dozen previous Security Council orders, which Baghdad would interpret as a legal triumph. It would also show that Colin Powell's faith in the U.N. system and his own persuasive powers has been grievously misplaced.
What would be the consequences of a victory by Saddam over the U.S. in the Security Council? If President Bush were to meekly accept the rebuff of a further watering-down of the U.S.-British resolution, his administration would become a laughingstock. Worse, the world would have no way to restrain nuclear blackmail.
That won't happen.
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.404 / Virus Database: 228 - Release Date: 10/15/2002
