“Regime change is not what
the Security Council endorsed in Res. 1441”.
When you focus
on Blix’s reports about reluctant chemical and biological weapons disclosures
but ignore El Bahardei’s negative reports of nuclear weapons evidence, you are
playing hide and seek with the targeted audience, your voters and public
opinion. When deliberate leaks
unmask spying on the Security Council and some evidence is questionable, the
case becomes less convincing to those already doubting. This undermines the credibility of the
administration, but more significantly, the United States of America. - KWC Why We Need a Second U.N.
Resolution
By Joseph R. Biden Jr., Monday,
March 10, 2003; Page A21 France, Russia and
Germany are engaged in a game of dangerous brinkmanship at the United Nations. Some in the Bush
administration have responded in kind. Together, they threaten to drive the
interests of our countries over a cliff. There is still time to pull back from
the precipice and disarm Iraq without dividing the Atlantic alliance and
debilitating the Security Council. That will require real leadership on both
sides of the Atlantic. President Bush was
right to take the Iraq issue to the United Nations; Secretary of State Colin
Powell has been valiant in his efforts to build consensus there. But for some in the administration, not going
to war has never been an option, no matter what Iraq does. That became clear last week when the White House -- in the middle of the diplomatic endgame -- said that even if Iraq gives up all its weapons, that's not good enough; Saddam Hussein has to go. I support that goal. But regime change is not what the Security Council endorsed
in Resolution 1441.
Moving the goalposts this late in
the game is a bad way to win friends and influence allies. Similarly, for some in Europe, going
to war has never been an option, no matter what Iraq does not
do. Resolution
1441 requires Baghdad to make a full, accurate and final accounting of its
weapons programs and to actively cooperate with the inspectors. Four months later, Iraq has not done so.
And just as it has spent the past
12 years shirking its obligation to disarm, Iraq will spend the years ahead
building up an arsenal of destruction if we fail to enforce the Persian Gulf
War terms of surrender. Yet France
and its followers now demand more inspectors and more time, while ruling out
deadlines and the use of force. That
tells Hussein to sit tight and watch the West divide itself. This standoff has
produced an unprecedented level of anger with our allies that is bound to
corrode cooperation beyond Iraq, including cooperation in the war on terror. The best way out is a second Security
Council resolution -- a
resolution that, for different reasons, the United States and Europe share a
profound interest in achieving. For the United States, a second resolution is not a legal
requirement, but it is a strategic
one. It would give
political cover to key allies such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. And it would greatly increase the number of countries willing
to join our coalition. This would
help spread the risks of military action and the massive burden of putting Iraq
back together -- something President Bush does not like to talk about. Invading and occupying Iraq under a
U.N., rather than a U.S., flag would minimize resentment, making us less of a
target for malcontents around the world. Failure
to achieve a second resolution would isolate the United States instead of Iraq. For Europe, a second resolution is probably the last best
chance to avoid war. Solidarity at the United Nations would
concentrate Hussein's mind
-- and the minds of his senior advisers -- on the need to choose now between
giving up weapons and giving up power. There is a chance, however remote, that Hussein will make the
right choice, or that the choice will be made for him. A French and Russian veto would gravely
wound the Security Council, denying both countries an important forum for
leveraging their power and advancing their international agendas. Getting to yes on a second resolution will
require hard-liners in the Bush administration to do something for which they
have shown little aptitude: compromise. Instead of seeking a resolution that says the game is up
and war is on, we should show enough flexibility to bring the Security Council
with us while keeping the pressure on Hussein. The resolution should combine points that France and others
say they want -- more time for Iraq to meet specific disarmament demands -- with a bottom line that
we need: a deadline and a clear commitment to use force. We should support a
new resolution that lists
very specifically
the tasks we believe Iraq must accomplish to show
it is disarming; sets
an early deadline for compliance, say the end of March; and makes clear that if Iraq does not
meet the deadline, the
international community
will use force to disarm it. Saddam Hussein is
relentlessly pursuing weapons of mass destruction, abusing his own people and
making a mockery of the United Nations. With or without a second U.N. resolution, and barring a coup
or last-minute conversion by Hussein, the United States will act to disarm him.
But we will be infinitely better
off if we act with the United Nations and with as many friends as possible --
not in spite of them. We can
succeed if we show real leadership -- the kind of leadership that inspires others to follow. The writer is a U.S.
senator from Delaware and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2862-2003Mar9.html |
