Bush should give peace a chance
seattlepi.nwsource.com
Wednesday, May 8, 2002
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON -- To hear American officials starting with
President Bush tell it, you would think a U.S.-led invasion
of Iraq is inevitable.
Why would we want to do that? How many lives of
Americans and Iraqis are we prepared to sacrifice to topple
one man, Saddam Hussein? What right do we have to
overthrow the Iraqi regime anyway?
Yes, it violated U.N. resolutions in 1998 by ousting
international weapons inspectors who were trying to make
sure that it was not secretly producing chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons.
But other nations, including Israel, have violated U.N.
resolutions, and we have not tried to oust their leaders.
Since he came to power, Bush has been obsessed with
bringing about what he calls "a change of regime" in the
Iraqi dictatorship. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
says the effort would be accomplished by "whatever means"
it takes.
One explanation for Bush's fixation on ousting Saddam
Hussein is that he wants to avenge his father, who was
victorious against Iraq in the Persian Gulf war in 1991 but
failed to unseat its ruler. Conservatives have long accused
the elder Bush of not finishing the job in Baghdad.
However, considering the human cost, surely personal
vengeance is not a valid reason to start a Middle East
conflagration. Such a drastic move would anger even more
the already alienated Arab world against America.
Another of the administration's arguments for an attack is
that Iraq is a brutal dictatorship. It is, absolutely. But so are
other nations -- Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Burma, Libya,
for example. And Bush isn't trying to take them down.
Iraq may be making doomsday chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons. But wouldn't the United States make a
more persuasive case if it would publicly lay out whatever
evidence it has, such as satellite photos?
Assuming that Iraq has those weapons, it is not alone.
There are many nations, including the United States, that
have nuclear arsenals.
It would be better to keep international pressure on the
Iraqi regime for unrestrained U.N.-conducted weapons
inspections that might lead to a peaceful solution. A second
round of negotiations on the subject resumed at the United
Nations last week with Iraq hoping to extract some
concessions -- lifting economic sanctions against the
country and eliminating the no-fly zones overhead -- in
exchange for its permitting the return of the inspectors.
For all Bush's war-drum-beating, the president is still
trying to find a reason to attack Baghdad that would be
acceptable to the world. Heaven knows, administration
officials tried to find an Iraqi link to the Sept. 11 terrorist
acts against the United States. But they could not find one.
If Iraq continues to stiff the United Nations on weapons
inspections, it will be up to the member states to impose
penalties, not the United States acting unilaterally.
Ironically, the United States itself has refused to accept
weapons inspectors from countries it considers hostile.
Furthermore, this nation chooses the sites that inspectors
who are allowed in the country may inspect. Under special
legislation, the president can block unannounced
inspections and ban inspectors from removing samples of
its chemical stockpiles.
But, hey, who said we had to be fair?
The New York Times reported April 28 that the United
States is planning an air and ground invasion of Iraq early
next year that could involve the use of 70,000 to 250,000
troops.
Apparently, Bush's timetable for an all-out military drive
against Iraq this year was set back by the recent violent
confrontation between the Israelis and Palestinians.
The Times quoted anonymous military officers as saying the
operation would require pre-emptive strikes against
suspected chemical and biological weapons sites.
Administration officials fear that Saddam Hussein, who has
used chemical weapons in the past against Iran and against
Iraqi Kurds in his own country, would try them against
American troops.
It's doubtful that the United States can count on much
help from major Arab nations if it invades Iraq. NATO allies,
except for Britain, which genuflects to Bush in matters of
war and peace, may also balk.
In a telephone interview, Mohammed Aldoury, the Iraqi
ambassador to the United Nations, told me: "We challenge
anybody, Americans or others, to present one shred of
evidence" that his nation possesses weapons of mass
destruction. "They have not and they cannot."
Meantime, the United States used its clout last month to
oust Jose Bustani, the director-general of the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which conducts
inspections of weapons labs and oversees destruction of
illegal stockpiles.
During his tenure, Bustani oversaw the destruction of 2
million chemical weapons and two-thirds of the world's
chemical weapon facilities. He also raised the number of
signers to the weapons convention from 87 to 145 in the
past five years.
But the Bush administration accused him of
mismanagement and "ill-considered initiatives" such as
threatening inspections in five unspecified nations.
The real reason, according to news reports, was that he
wanted to get Iraq to sign the anti-weapons convention and
become a member of the organization, a move the United
States strongly opposed.
Thus, his real sin was trying to provide an alternative to the
war with Iraq that the administration wants.
President Bush should give peace a chance. Let's not get
caught up in an arrogance of military power.
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers.
E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. Copyright 2002 Hearst
Newspapers.
seattlepi.nwsource.com |
