A defining moment for the UN

Yesterday, after eight weeks of haggling, the United Nations at last adopted a resolution demanding Saddam Hussein open up to international inspectors. This latest resolution, U.S. President George W. Bush says, represents Saddam's "final opportunity" to satisfy the world that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction or programs for making them. Even those permanent members of the Security Council reluctant to back action against Iraq -- Russia, China and France -- signed on. The resolution gives Saddam seven days to respond, and requires that weapons inspectors report back to the Council 60 days after beginning their work. But it carries no explicit threat of war in case of non-compliance -- a concession to the United States' critics.

If Saddam can be defanged without armed conflict, then the United Nations will have earned a triumph. But given Saddam's track record, we are skeptical. The Iraqi dictator has an obsession with WMDs: He believes he can dominate the Middle East, threaten Israel and gain leverage against the West once he can hang a nuke over everyone's head. Thus, it is unlikely he will give up his deadly ambitions peaceably.

It is far more likely the next few months will play out as follows. Saddam will co-operate initially, making a great show of deference to the will of the UN (as distinct from the United States). But, as he has done over and over during the past decade, he will begin to play what George W. Bush calls his "old game of cheat and retreat." Inspectors will be delayed at certain sites while material is hustled away; other sites will be declared permanently off-limits" because they are "presidential" compounds; Saddam's toughs will hang around while technical personnel are being interviewed; etc. A month or two later, UN inspectors will report all this to the Council. Britain and the United States will start preparing for an invasion, with France, Russia and China urging delay.

Meanwhile, a parallel debate will be taking place among international lawyers. Does yesterday's Security Council resolution mandate the use of force -- at least implicitly? The Americans will answer yes. The French and Russians will argue no, and insist that they compromised with the Americans only on the understanding that a second Security Council resolution would be required to justify the use of force. The debate will become a squabble over commas and articles -- much as the controversy surrounding famed UN Security Council Resolution 242, concerning the lands Israel won in the 1967 war, swirls around the lack of the word "the" before the words "occupied territories."

However this second act plays out, however, we know how Act III will begin: The United States and Britain will lead an invasion of Iraq. Even if this operation infuriates the Russians and French, there is no alternative. Mr. Bush has indicated he will not sit idly while a murderous lunatic builds a non-conventional arsenal. And given the Republicans' strong victory in Tuesday's midterm elections, Mr. Bush has all the domestic political capital he needs.

The main unknown is how the Chinese, Russians and French will react to the U.S.-led offensive. If they acquiesce to the inevitable, all will be right. But should they wield their Security Council powers in a bid to appease Saddam, they would put the United Nations on the wrong side of a war that will take place with or without UN approval. Assuming the military campaign goes well -- and there is little reason to suppose it won't -- the UN will be profoundly discredited.

Back in October, Mr. Bush told the United Nations: "You can be the United Nations or the League of Nations." The historical reference is apt. The League of Nations was a kind of proto-UN that fell apart in the 1930s after proving unable to oppose the rise of Europe's fascist, warmongering despots. If Iraq is liberated without the Security Council's blessing, the UN may self-destruct in a similar way. The purported guardian of world peace will be exposed as an insignificant talk shop, much as Europe was exposed when the United States was forced to intervene in the mid-90s in Yugoslavia.

The UN's Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, recently boasted that "there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations." He is wrong; the UN does not have greater legitimacy that the United States. But even to the extent that the UN has legitimacy, it is not bestowed from on high. Rather, it derives from the organization's ability to deal with serious threats to world peace. In the case of the global menace posed by Saddam Hussein, the UN has proved itself weak on 16 occasions -- for that is the number of past resolutions Saddam has ignored. If, as middle-game turns to end-game, members of the the UN's highest body conspire once again to coddle Saddam, then its League-like ineffectiveness will be made plain. Paris and Moscow, not Washington, will then rightly take the blame for the UN's collapsing prestige.

The vote was unanimous with no abstainers. Still think GW Bush is a bumbling idiot, Europe? Who has ever pulled off something like this?

I think Saddam is pulling a delay tactic while planning something big. We better be ready for whatever he is about to do and be ready to pull the trigger. I trust that GW is. A lot of our lives depend on it.

In the case of the global menace posed by Saddam Hussein, the UN has proved itself weak on 16 occasions -- for that is the number of past resolutions Saddam has ignored. If, as middle-game turns to end-game, members of the the UN's highest body conspire once again to coddle Saddam, then its League-like ineffectiveness will be made plain. Paris and Moscow, not Washington, will then rightly take the blame for the UN's collapsing prestige.

I liked this part best.

I'm feeling kind of nervous...something in the media that actually states, point by point, exactly how I think this is going to play out.

That leads me to believe I must be wrong.

"there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations."

Give me a break!! Were it not for the US the UN would have no legitimacy whatsoever. Get US out of the UN!--and while we are at it, let's see them set up their headquarters in some nice cozy Third World country instead of NY City.

The best wasthat after the UN vote the French guy came out to speak and was trying to so hard to convey the impression that they actually, finally, did something!
After 11 years!

Something they would have NEVER done without GWB & his team kicking their asses every step of the way!

"We are relevant, no need to disband my worthless orginization".

Every time he said Frwance, I could only think of the movie re-make "Father of the Bride" with Steve Martin & "Frwank" the wedding planner!

What self-important, puffed up, little turds they are.

The only reason the UN voted for this resolution is because GW said the US was going to take out Saddam Hussien whether they voted to the affirmitive or not and meant it. If the UN doesn't vote for it, they might as well disban. They would be nothing more than a glorified relief agency, which they are already. This way they can pretend that they matter, rather than have to give up all that skim money. Koffee Annon, who in the world would listen to that motor mouth if the US pulled its support? I still say Bill Clinton will make a shot at being UN Secretary General. (Look at me,I'm king of the world!)

Thanks knighthawk
Will Saddam stand and fight?

Will he give up his position,avoiding a war?

Would any nation offer him asylum?

Other alternatives?

Is he simply a mad man that doesn't see the hand writing on the wall? He must know by now President Bush is no Clinton.

He will play the game along again. He knows the UN is a paper tiger who will do anything to avoid a confronation. He knows that Russia, China and France will come to his rescue once more.

He will give up some of his WOMD's to pretend he unarmed himself. But the cat-and-mouse game will go on. He gave in the the inspections because he knows Bush will hit him hard if he doesn't.

The US and UK can't just attack Iraq, because the whole world will protest it, and who knows what might happen.

Maybe Saddam could go to Libya. I doubt there will be other countries who will help him.

We won this round, but it might just be another delay.

Just look at Arafat, he also manages to get away in the end.

Thanks for the ping.

Someone on the Fox (can't remember who now), suggested that Saddam will likely use satellite countries, like Indonesia, to hide his WMD's until the inspectors leave. Same old hide-and-seek game as before, but temporarily out of Iraq.

Saddam does not have any good allies, and Indonesia will not dare to do it, because of the Bali-shock. Just imagine what would happen to them if they helped Saddam.

But who knows. The Ukraine sold them radars through Ethiopia, so there are candidates enough who will do anything for money.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.