If I were Saddam Hussein, I would first shave my Stalin/ Geraldo mustache. Then with my new look, I would celebrate. There are a multitude of things Saddam has to be happy about: millions of war protestors support his dictatorship, France's pride and weakness is undermining the UN, and finally, President Bush has announced he will give Iraq one "last chance."
This new resolution, which the United States and Britain will present to the UN Security Council this week, is simply the latest in a long line of similar resolutions- the eighteenth to be exact. Apparently the seventeen previous resolutions weren't clear enough; certainly this eighteenth last chance will solve all the problems of Iraqi refusal to cooperate with the rest of the world. As the saying goes- "eighteen's a charm."
Calling this resolution a "last chance" is another example of the spurt of redefining common phrases that has occurred since Bush decided to disarm Saddam. "Unilateral action", which only 18 months ago meant one country acting on it's own, now means any coalition against Iraq that includes the United States, Britain, Spain, and a dozen European countries. "A rush to war" now means "over a year of deliberations and debate in the UN about the behavior of a country that has defied the UN for 12 years."
Last fall the Security Council voted 15-0 to pass a resolution meant to disarm Iraq. Now, just months later, with Iraq in obvious material breach of that resolution, countries are imitating former President Bubba's famous "that depends what the meaning of the word "is" is, logic. Well try this: UN inspectors found Al-Samoud missiles. These missiles are specifically banned. Iraq refuses to get rid of them. The word that describes how this is not material breach must exist only in French vocabulary.
Face facts. Saddam will never cooperate with inspectors- the feckless UN makes his compliance unnecessary.
UN shenanigan's aside, let's get back to Saddam's pleasure over recent world events. Last year, the dictator was in negotiations with Iran for permission to live in exile there. He was scared, and on at least some level he was preparing to flee for his life and allow us to avoid war. France and Saddam supporters/ war protestors have no doubt allowed him to rethink this strategy. The protestors, meaningless to the rest of the world, are very psychologically important to Saddam. Their mantra "we don't support Iraq, we're just against war" is contradictory and irrelevant. As the UN has shown, intentions don't count for much. How could Saddam possibly fail to see millions of anti-US protestors as support for himself?
Though these protestors have helped build up Saddam psychologically, the biggest help to Iraq comes from France. Had the world stood firmly against the dictator and shown convincing resolve against him, there would have been a small chance Saddam would have seen the light and walked away to save his skin. That scenario is no longer reasonable. In a political effort to pump itself up by opposing the United States, France has allowed potential billions in oil revenue from Iraqi contracts cloud its judgment and has reverted to its failed pre-WWII policy of waiting and appeasing.
The behavior of France and its cronies has negated the credibility of the world's resolve against Iraq, buying more time for Saddam and making war more and more likely. The failure of anti-US ideologues to see the big picture and their refusal to unite against an awful Iraqi regime has taken the option of a peaceful settlement off the table, strengthened the resolve of Saddam, and sped us along the road to war.
The "last chance" Britain and the United States are offering this week is not only for Saddam. It is also a last chance for the world community to decide if it wants to take part in making the world a better place, or if that's a job for the US and it's "unilateral" coalition.
17 Archives
Joshua Sterns
200302252156midsize.jpg
Joshua Sterns
