Conditionally Unconditional
Maybe the word “unconditional” loses something in the translation from English to Arabic, because it certainly doesn’t appear to mean to Saddam Hussein what it means to me.
Less than a week after pledging to let UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq with no strings attached, Hussein’s government has reneged on its promise. Hussein now says that inspectors will not be readmitted if the United Nations Security Council issues a U.S.-sponsored resolution threatening war if Iraq blocks inspections. Basically, inspectors are welcome back, so long as Iraq isn’t required to make good on its promise to welcome them back. Chicken and egg meet the dictator and the UN.
Clearly Iraq’s pledge to unconditional allowance of inspections was a lie meant to undo the progress President Bush made with his recent UN speech. While not surprising, it is pretty pathetic to see Saddam’s inability to tell the truth thrust into the light so quickly. It usually takes at least a few months. He’s losing his touch. Really. We need to find another despicable dictator to put into power so we can spend a decade knocking him around. This one isn’t any fun anymore.
The proposed resolution, like all Security Council resolutions, would carry the (debatable) weight of international law. Iraq already stands in violation of the resolution that created a cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, which gives America the moral high ground in calling for a resolution to back up the new inspections. In light of Saddam’s past treatment of inspectors and flaunting of the weak 1991 resolution (which does not guarantee a renewed attack on Iraq should Hussein fail to comply), it would be absurd to take him at his word.
If Hussein is serious about allowing inspections, then he must allow them in a truly unconditional manner, and accept that there will be consequences, perhaps even an invasion, should he hinder the investigation. And if he isn’t serious about allowing inspections, then the United Nations should authorize any necessary military actions required to either force his agreement or remove his government for power. Enough is enough. It’s time to stop coddling this snake and knock him down.
But knocking Hussein down is not a mission the United States should attempt alone. While the Bush administration is in the right pushing for a tougher UN stance on Iraq, it would be immoral for the United States to invade Iraq unilaterally. The United Nations Security Council has ordered a cease-fire in Iraq in a resolution to which the United States agreed. Until the Security Council lifts the cease-fire, the United States is obligated to stand by the UN directive. Violating international law is the job of the rogue states, not the world’s last superpower.
Not only would attacking Iraq violate UN resolutions, it would go against America’s history. We have never attacked another nation in such a manner (all debate about the Confederate States of America set aside).
We have not been provoked by Iraq, nor attacked. Donald Rumsfeld claims that there is “evidence” linking Iraq to al-Qaeda, but until that evidence is made public, such statements must be considered specious justification from an administration that is inexplicably chomping at the bit to start a war.
And then there’s the fact that the president of the United States cannot start a war on his own. A reactionary conflict when the United States or one of our allies are attacked logically falls within the purview of the president’s power as commander in chief. But when we have not been attacked, that is another matter entirely. Iraq is not acting aggressively toward our allies or our nation. The commander in chief has no business picking fights whenever he wants. To attack another nation, out of the blue, should require a declaration of war, not just an executive whim. And such declarations can only come from Congress.
Yes, Iraq has violated the cease-fire resolution of 1991. But until the Security Council amends that resolution to allow for continued fighting, or issues a new one that authorizes an attack, America is still bound by the cease-fire. Being the biggest nation on the block does not give us immunity from the requirements of international law.
For years America has rightly complained about being thrust into the role of the world’s policeman. But it serves our interests no better to place ourselves in the role of the world’s mobster. It is not America’s place to go around breaking the kneecaps of any nation that we don’t happen to like. If we want to take down Iraq, and there are many reasonable reasons to do so, then there are procedures to follow. The entire point of the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular, is to prevent the arrogant behavior Bush’s team is considering: the invasion of one sovereign state by another.
Saddam Hussein should be deposed. Iraq has violated the 1991 cease-fire, and it is in the best interests of the world for there to be a “regime change” in Baghdad.
But it is in no one’s interest, least of all America’s, for our nation to act unilaterally in this regard. America should be embracing the wider world, not ignoring it. We should be cajoling our allies into agreeing with our position, not ignoring their concerns and doing whatever we want anyway.
Saddam Hussein needs to go. America should lead the way in deposing him. But nothing should happen until the UN Security Council and our allies are on board, lest the world begins to look at the United States and Iraq and wonder which is the real rogue state.
