'Final Opportunity' for the U.N.
Germany and France ought to read Resolution 1441.
BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY
Monday, January 27, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110002970
United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix will report today on his adventures in Iraq, and is expected to ask for "more time." For what? He and nearly everyone else seem to have forgotten what the Security Council voted for in sending him to Baghdad.
"A final opportunity to comply," was the key phrase in Resolution 1441, adopted by the Security Council last November. Saddam Hussein would have one last chance to disarm, to account for the weapons of mass destruction the U.N. previously estimated he had, to stop his rule of terror and otherwise to abide by 16 previous U.N. resolutions. Mr. Blix would be available to receive the necessary documents, chemicals, viruses and nuclear materials.
The Security Council spelled out a solemn list of 14 salient points. Nowhere did this list mention "find smoking gun." That the original "final opportunity" would morph into the present "no smoking gun" was of course entirely predictable. Indeed, it was predicted by those who warned against letting the U.N. and "world opinion" lay clammy hands on the Iraq issue.
But someone ought to take a look at the words of Resolution 1441. Indeed, someone in the press ought to report what a unified U.S. government has been saying over and over. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Keep in mind that the inspectors are not in the country on a scavenger hunt for weapons." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: "We cannot expect that the U.N. inspectors have the capacity to disarm an uncooperative Iraq." Secretary of State Colin Powell: "It was not a search mission, it was a mission to assist Iraq into coming into compliance with UN resolutions."
The notion that Saddam would voluntarily decide to disarm was of course far-fetched to begin with, but the Resolution 1441 does have precedent. Mr. Wolfowitz pointed to the cases of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and South Africa. When these nations decided it was in their interest to abandon nuclear weapons, international inspectors verified disarmament through procedures like those Iraq was offered.
Clearly, Saddam has not seized his "final opportunity to comply," and has not the least intention of doing so. Security Council Point Three demanded "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. . . ." In response Iraq offered a three-foot stack of documents that left even Mr. Blix sputtering, "We feel the declaration has not answered a great many questions of the past that still remain open."
Or as Mr. Armitage put it, finding 16 empty chemical warheads was nice, but "Where are the other 29,984? Because that is how many empty chemical warheads the U.N. Special Commission estimated he had." Also, "Where are the 550 artillery shells that are filled with mustard gas? And the 400 biological weapons-capable aerial bombs? And the 26,000 liters of anthrax? The botulinum, the VX, the Sarin gas that the U.N. said he has?"
In Point Four, the resolution specified that "false statements or omissions in the declarations" would constitute a "further material breach," as would Iraq's failure to "cooperate fully in the implementation" of the resolution.
Mr. Blix will no doubt confirm that Iraqi scientists thought to be involved with weapons of mass destruction have been refusing to talk to inspectors. Mr. Wolfowitz says "we know from multiple sources" that the scientists and their families have been threatened with execution if they do so. Meanwhile, two would-be defectors have jumped from the streets into the hands of U.N. inspectors, who have turned them over to the tender mercies of Saddam's police.
Then there is the matter of Point Eight: The Security Council "decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution." As it has since 1991, Iraq has continued to fire on U.S. and British aircraft enforcing the "no fly" zones established under U.N. authority back then.
Saddam, in short, has reacted to his "final opportunity" in Resolution 1441 the same way he reacted to 16 previous Security Council resolutions. To wit, with evasions, lies, feints, delay and ultimately, contempt. There is not the least reason to believe that with "more time" his behavior will change under the merciless pounding of Hans Blix and Kofi Annan.
The issue, rather, is whether Mr. Blix, Mr. Annan, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and the rest were serious in the 15-0 vote supporting Resolution 1441 last November. Point 13 noted that the Security Council "has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."
"No, no, no," the "world opinion" chorus now chants, "those were only words, never intended to have any consequence." Meanwhile, the convoluted politics of the United Nations--a mixture of democracies, authoritarian regimes and dictatorships--has produced Libya as head of its Human Rights Commission. In this forum, why should we expect that there would be anything final about a "final opportunity?"
Perhaps the chances are not zero. After all, the current international "no, no, no" is an echo of the mood before President Bush spoke to the U.N. last October. He used the opportunity to rub collective faces in all of the other Security Council resolutions Saddam had successfully flouted over the years. If the U.N. doesn't take its own words seriously, he pointed out, it can't be a serious organization. This is what produced Resolution 1441 and its "final opportunity"; its toughness was considered a triumph of American diplomacy.
So now the United Nations has a final opportunity to prove itself a serious place--or at least for democracies such as Germany and France to show that their words mean something when they vote for Security Council Resolutions. They can't expect to be serious players in the world if they leave President Bush and his "coalition of the willing" to take enforcement of Resolution 1441 into their own hands.
Mr. Bartley is editor emeritus of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com. |
