Is Bush too ready to pounce on Iraq?
Jules Witcover
Originally published Dec 2, 2002
WASHINGTON -- Now that the inspections of Iraqi facilities
in a search for weapons of mass destruction have begun, there
seem to be two distinct aspirations among those awaiting
reports.
Most of the United Nations apparently hope that the
inspection teams will find no such weapons or the means to make them,
but if they are found, that Saddam Hussein will then admit their existence
and agree to their demolition.
The Bush administration appears to hope that he will continue to deny
their existence even if strong evidence is discovered, thus vindicating the
administration's sweeping allegations and providing the green light for
American military action, with or without U.N. sanction and assistance.
The war-authorizing resolution negotiated by Secretary of State Colin
Powell was intended to provide no wiggle room for the Iraqi regime. An
obvious purpose of the provision requiring declaration by Dec. 8 of any
prohibited weapons and facilities is to pin down Saddam Hussein at the
outset.
But what if the U.N. inspections team headed by Swedish diplomat Hans
Blix either drags its feet or comes up with a report that falls short of direct
evidence of "material breach" of U.N. demands and a direct
condemnation of Iraq?
President Bush, who never wanted to work through the U.N. in the first
place, has indicated he won't wait for a mountain of evidence before
declaring there has been a further material breach and attacking, with or
without the U.N.
Many will say that the president, regardless of his early reluctance, did
accede to those who preached that inspections be given a last chance and
therefore will have diplomacy as well as morality on his side in acting. But
unless the evidence of material breach is clear-cut, most of the
international community is not likely to bolt out of the gate as Mr. Bush
apparently wants.
It is true, probably thanks to Mr. Powell, the old soldier who is no
hip-shooter, that the president has significantly backed away from his
original insistence on "regime change" in Iraq, to disarmament. But it's also
clear that the downshifting was a necessary diplomatic move to achieve
U.N. acquiescence in the war resolution.
In getting the U.N. aboard, however, the administration has not quieted
international concerns over the basic question of pre-emptive military
action, especially in light of the far-reaching Bush strategy statement that
signals future pre-emptive attacks against American-perceived terrorist
threats anywhere.
Mr. Bush's assumption in that statement that America's status as the
world's remaining superpower bestows on it greater peacekeeping
responsibility can be seen as claiming for the United States alone the right
of military pre-emption. What if other states, such as Pakistan or India,
also claim it to justify a first strike under the Bush doctrine of "anticipatory
self-defense"?
For this reason alone, it must be hoped that whatever the U.N. inspection
team finds or fails to find produces a clearly persuasive report that
generates solid U.N. backing for whatever action is warranted. It would
be a mistake for President Bush to take any questionable evidence of
material breach to send the planes, missiles and men against Iraq.
How he responds will demonstrate whether he went to the U.N. in the
first place only for show, or whether he appreciates the importance of
solidarity with the world community -- and respect for international law --
in seeking Iraqi disarmament.
Although Mr. Bush, again after first resisting, did go to Congress and
obtain war authorization, it should not be forgotten, either, that the
Constitution still states explicitly that "Congress shall have power ... to
declare war." Those who believe the president in the era of terrorism
should have this power ought to seek a constitutional amendment, not
dance around the matter. Such a debate, not now but later, would be an
enlightening exercise for the country.
Jules Witcover writes from The Sun's Washington bureau. His column
appears Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. |
