Posted on 02/03/2003 4:13:58 PM PST by knighthawk
WASHINGTON - Tony Blair is spending the weekend with President Bush at Camp David, arguing that the United States ought to return to the United Nations for a second anti-Iraq resolution. Blair's views are being repeated and amplified by other U.S. allies, by Democratic politicians in the U.S., and of course by many journalists. But Blair's views raise this other question: Why is two the magic number? Why not three? Or five? Or 28?
On Nov. 8, the UN Security Council voted unanimously in favour of Resolution 1441, which demanded that Iraq readmit arms inspectors into its territory. That resolution specified that any non-compliance with the inspectors, any untruthful statement, any omission would be a "material breach" of the resolution. And since Resolution 1441 was adopted under the authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the fighting chapter, a "material breach" constitutes an act of war.
On Jan. 27, chief inspector Hans Blix returned to the Security Council to report that Iraq was not complying and that it continued to lie. Blix might also have pointed that out that his inspectors have been harassed and intimidated, and that the Iraqi scientists he summoned for questioning by the inspectors have been warned by the regime that their families will be killed if they talk.
In other words, what we have here is one long string of "material breaches," any one of which -- according to the UN itself -- is enough to justify war. So why keep yammering?
In Tony Blair's case, the motive is political: The UN gives him protective cover against the qualms and doubts of his middle-of-the-road political constituency. A poll this week by the left-wing British tabloid The Daily Mirror found that while 16% of the British public favour immediate action against Saddam Hussein, and 41% oppose action under all circumstances, 43% would favour action if the action were explicitly authorized by the UN.
The trouble is, however, that Iraq's friends in the United Nations -- France first and foremost -- are reading those same polls. They will do whatever it takes to prevent the Security Council from giving Blair his political cover. And France's ability to make mischief at the UN is very great.
Remember, it is not the vast, unwieldy General Assembly that makes the big decisions at the United Nations. It is the 15 members of the Security Council that cast the votes that matter. Most UN-watchers believe that the U.S. could easily win a majority vote on the Security Council in favour of action against Iraq. But as one of the Council's five permanent members, France possesses a veto -- which means that any decision to return to the Security Council is a decision to put ultimate power over America's and the West's national security into the rather grimy hands of France's President Jacques Chirac.
Chirac, as you may recall, was the prime minister who authorized the sale of a French nuclear reactor to Iraq back in the 1970s. Saddam Hussein promptly turned the reactor to military use -- and it was this same reactor that Israel destroyed in the Osirak raid of 1981.
Chirac's motive for putting this deadly technology into such dangerous hands can only be guessed at. What we can say is that in his long political career, Jacques Chirac has been willing to trim and reverse himself on virtually every one of the principles and beliefs he has ever espoused, with only one exception: his apparently unwavering determination to sustain Saddam Hussein's power over the world's second-largest pool of oil. When people insist on working through the UN system, what they are really saying is that they are content to consign the fate of the Middle East to the doubtful judgment of one French politician.
The UN ideal still inspires many millions of people around the world. I don't happen to share the ideal myself, but I can understand and respect it. But even believers in an ideal have to admit that ideals can be abused for selfish purposes -- and they ought very seriously to ask themselves whether that abuse is not precisely what is occurring now at the United Nations.
Of course, many of those who demand a return to the United Nations do not care one straw for the UN ideal. They simply want to thwart the United States by whatever means and with whatever excuses come to hand. If that means associating themselves with Jacques Chirac's political manoeuvres, fine; if that means aligning themselves with Saddam Hussein, fine again.
But is it fine? Are you, reader, willing to let your hopes for a more peaceful and secure world be hijacked in this way? Are you willing to grant the man who sold Saddam Hussein his nuclear reactor the right to veto any plan to disarm that same Saddam? If not, you'll support George W. Bush when he politely but firmly tells his ally Tony Blair: "Sorry Tony -- one UN resolution is plenty."
David Frum's new book, The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush, is published by Random House.
No more UN for US-list
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
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.