Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (62477)	12/20/2002 11:53:08 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Omissions aren't enough reason to go to war THE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD Friday, December 20, 2002 The Bush administration is making a risky break from international allies in its willingness to use alleged problems with Iraq's weapons declaration as a pretext for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday enunciated the president's intention to push the notion that an Iraqi false statement or omission in the document would, in itself, constitute a "material breach" of U.N. Resolution 1441. Such a breach of the resolution is the threshold for consideration of military action. Even if the administration can produce evidence of serious problems with the Iraqi document, which it has not yet done, declaring that a material breach would be contrary to the view held by most other nations, including frequent allies France and Great Britain. The U.N. resolution reads: "False statements or omissions in the declarations . . . and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach." The French and Brits say the crucial word is "and." They argue that a material breach must involve deception on the declarations and a pattern of Iraqi defiance. To date, the Iraqi government has maintained at least the appearance of cooperation. The administration's stance is that either problems with the disclosure declaration or Iraqi compliance with inspectors constitutes a material breach and justification for military force. Even if his premise is accepted, the president must keep in mind that it was he who urged the United Nations to force Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Other nations must keep in mind that these are conditions to which Iraq agreed as it sued for peace at the end of the Persian Gulf War. The United Nations has agreed to that course of action and the United States is obliged to defer to the U.N.-sanctioned process. As Sergey Lavrov, Russian ambassador to the United Nations, put it, "It is not for Russia or anybody else to make any judgments" about Iraqi compliance until the U.N. inspectors have made their evaluations. If chief inspector Hans Blix "believes there is a violation, he comes to the Security Council," Lavrov said. "There is no other way, and everyone knows it." The United States must understand that. The United States should, however, reserve the right to use unilateral military force if there is evidence of a clear, present and direct threat to the United States, its personnel or allies, or of Iraqi complicity in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Absent that, the president remains obligated to let play out the U.N. process he championed. A Los Angeles Times poll indicates that 63 percent of Americans believe that war against Iraq would be justified only if the United Nations finds a pattern of serious violations by Iraq. Among adults interviewed Dec. 12 through 15, only 22 percent agreed that an error or omission on the Iraqi declaration is adequate justification for war and a full 72 percent (including 60 percent of Republicans), believes Bush has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq. It is in the world's best interest that Saddam Hussein is prohibited from possessing weapons of mass destruction and that all measures are taken to enforce that prohibition, including a United States-led multinational military coalition to enforce it if necessary. But it is also in the best interest of the world, and of the United States, to reach a broad consensus on what constitutes Iraqi compliance and how to deal with any non-compliance. seattlepi.nwsource.com