The first benchmark is just silly beyond all imagination. But the real problem with "benchmarks" is that meeting these benchmarks is a matter of interpretation (as is
everything in the U.N.) and potentially a matter of yet another vote to decide which interpretation to accept.
If the U.N. adopts "benchmarks", then it must also adopt a means of determining whether they are met or not, or whether being "partially met" means that maybe a little more time might allow them to be better met.
Benchmarks are no different in the U.N. than further resolutions or inspection reports -- it's all left to the interpretation of the body.
Because that is the U.N. process -- the whole point of its being (in its own eyes) anyway: to prevent war through negotiation.
Benchmarks are just another hurdle for the U.S. to pass, they are not a hurdle meant to trip Saddam, they are designed to give more room for manuever to those opposing attacking Iraq.
This needs to come out of the U.N. process -- not be immersed deeper in it. That is what is so encouraging about Bush's speech setting out an ultimatum directly from him to Saddam -- it takes the whole issue out of the U.N. process.
"The first benchmark is just silly beyond all imagination. But the real problem with "benchmarks" is that meeting these benchmarks is a matter of interpretation (as is everything in the U.N.) and potentially a matter of yet another vote to decide which interpretation to accept..."
US Veto power on that vote, but we would never get to it.
The "2nd Reso." passes, France, Russia and/or China veto, The US declares that a majority of the the UN SC agrees that Iraq is in material breech and has not provided for any means to correct that breech. The US must act in its absence. Hence, US and friends can begin operations in Iraq, and the UN is shown to be irrelevent.