Regards, Ivan
Posted on 03/16/2003 4:05:38 PM PST by MadIvan
The Azores Summit will go down in history as the time when the talking stopped. "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world," said George W Bush, before reiterating his support for an interim authority in a liberated Iraq. Mr Bush added that today would be the last day when diplomacy could work.
"Without a credible ultimatum," said Tony Blair, "more discussion just means more delay." Appealing for the world to unite behind such an ultimatum, he added that "we are in the final stages. Now is the time when we have to decide."
This was an ultimatum in all but name. Saddam Hussein has been given only a day's grace. Assuming that France, Russia and the other opponents of war do not climb down by agreeing to a new resolution, there is every likelihood that the war will begin within hours. It could even begin tonight.
Despite Mr Blair's readiness to press on with a final round of talks, it was clear from the news conference that time has run out for Saddam. Mr Bush was only prepared to talk about new UN resolutions "if military force is required … to encourage broad participation in the process of helping the Iraqi people to build a free Iraq". That means the American demand for regime change has prevailed, and Mr Bush emphasised this by insisting that Saddam could still avert war by leaving Iraq.
Saddam's reaction to the warning was instant and characteristic: "Who appointed America the unjust judge of the world?" The fact that Jacques Chirac might well echo Saddam's sentiment is an indication of how the French president's intransigence has divided the West.
President Bush compared the diplomacy to poker, adding that France had "shown its cards" by threatening to veto any new resolution. In this game of nerves, the stakes are vertiginously high. It is not only the future of Iraq that is in question; the viability of the Western alliance, the UN, and the entire world order is also at stake.
While Mr Bush was emphatic on the importance of the UN, he made it clear that the nature of war in the 21st century, and specifically the war against terrorism, would require a more effective system to secure international cooperation. His scepticism about whether the UN would, or could, "do its job" was obvious to all.
This is a vision of the future that transcends the present emergency; indeed, it goes to the heart of the rift between America and "Old Europe". Mr Bush sees the crisis in terms of defending the free world against the imminent peril of terrorism and rogue states; M Chirac sees no urgency and regards America as the rogue state. The disagreement is profound, but it boils down to the relationship between war and legality.
Modern war is often a continuation of law enforcement by other means. Yesterday, British ministers were at pains to emphasise that, as Gordon Brown said, "the Government is satisfied that [war with Iraq] is legal". The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is said to have given as his opinion that military action against Iraq would be justified with or without another United Nations resolution.
The legal basis for war is provided by all existing UN resolutions, from 687 of April 1991, which made a ceasefire conditional on Iraqi disarmament, to 1441 of last year, which threatened "serious consequences". This view is shared not only by the Americans but also by the Spanish prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, who yesterday declared that "a further resolution would be politically desirable … but from a legal point of view it is not indispensable".
The fact that the UN has already endorsed military action does not mean, however, that legality is the only, or even the most important, factor in deciding whether or not to go to war. Few wars have been fought explicitly in the name of the UN: the only major precedents have been Korea and the 1991 Gulf war, in which the present crisis originated.
Yet there have been numerous other conflicts whose justification under international law has been generally recognised, most recently in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Equally, the UN has failed to act on countless occasions when international law was flouted.
Yesterday, as Mr Bush reminded the world, was the 15th anniversary of Halabja, where thousands of Kurds were murdered by Saddam's chemical weapons. It is absurd to suggest that the opposition of one or more members of the Security Council deprives the proposed use of force to disarm Iraq of its legitimacy.
Yet the exhausting and undignified diplomatic wrangling at the UN has given precisely that impression. Mr Blair famously believes in big tents, and the UN is the biggest tent of all. But by trying to include everybody, he has risked jeopardising the moral high ground that America and Britain already occupied.
Yesterday's summit finally dispelled the illusion that the UN is or can be the sole arbiter of war and peace. It is not a question of unilateralism versus multilateralism, but of action versus words.
Regards, Ivan
During the Sinkmeister years, I saw Blair as just another Clinton apologist.
Boy has my opinion changed.
Let's roll.
No need to use Nukes. Just a lot of MOABs will be used!
Absolutely!
Its first from may be a free trade organization like NAFTA. I hope this will come to pass, it would be good for all.
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.