Raines watch. The recent NY Times editorials on Iraq defy all analysis. They seem to be backing off their former anti-war crusade by saying nothing much, loudly. They are for multilateralism and diplomacy, though it isn't working. The only sensible explanation comes from NY Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, who says "We haven't really made up our minds" on Iraq.
ljworld.com
Here are three NY Times editorials. Hats off to anyone who can figure out what they are really trying to say:
The Case Against Iraq
Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the United Nations and a global television audience yesterday with the most powerful case to date that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions and has no intention of revealing or surrendering whatever unconventional weapons he may have. In doing so, with the help of spy satellite photos and communications intercepts, Mr. Powell placed squarely before the Security Council the fateful question of how it should respond. As American military forces in the region build toward full strength, President Bush should continue to let diplomacy work. The manner in which the United States wields its great power, and the regard it gives to the views of other nations, are vital matters as a showdown with Iraq draws near. The character of America is at issue as much as its military might.
Mr. Powell's most convincing evidence was of efforts by Iraq to shield chemical or biological weapons programs from United Nations inspectors. The intercepted conversations of Republican Guard officers that he played, in which they urgently seek to hide equipment or to destroy communications in advance of inspections, offered stark evidence that Mr. Hussein has not only failed to cooperate with the inspectors, as Resolution 1441 requires him to, but has actively sought to thwart them. Mr. Powell also offered new evidence that Al Qaeda terrorists have found safe harbor in Iraq, but the links between Baghdad and the terror network seemed more tenuous than his other charges.
Mr. Powell's presentation was all the more convincing because he dispensed with apocalyptic invocations of a struggle of good and evil and focused on shaping a sober, factual case against Mr. Hussein's regime. It may not have produced a "smoking gun," but it left little question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal one.
In response to Mr. Powell's presentation, the foreign ministers of France, Germany, China and Russia called for extending and strengthening the inspection program in Iraq. The French minister, Dominique de Villepin, proposed expanding the number of inspectors and increasing the pressure on Iraq to comply. With the senior inspectors due to make their next report to the Security Council next week, Iraq still has a chance to change course.
President Bush's decision to dispatch Mr. Powell to present the administration's case before the Security Council showed a wise concern for international opinion. Since Mr. Bush's own address to the U.N. last September, he has kept faith with his commitment to work through the Security Council. As the crisis builds, he should make every possible effort to let the council take the lead.
The Security Council, the American people and the rest of the world have an obligation to study Mr. Powell's presentation very closely and very seriously. Because the consequences of war are so terrible, and the cost of rebuilding Iraq so great, the United States cannot afford to confront Iraq without broad international support.
nytimes.com
Endgame
The Iraq crisis has entered a period of intensely coercive diplomacy. It is unclear how long this phase will last — our guess is a few weeks — but the pressure is rapidly building on Saddam Hussein to give up his evasions or even his office. He may well do neither, inviting an American attack, but we are glad to see the Bush administration turning up the heat before it turns to war.
President Bush added to the pressure yesterday with a strongly worded warning to Iraq. Coupled with Colin Powell's salvo on Wednesday and the disclosure that the 101st Airborne Division — with its fleet of combat helicopters — is being dispatched to the Persian Gulf region, Washington has left little doubt that it is preparing for a confrontation.
But President Bush confirmed that he was willing to allow the diplomatic dance to swirl a while longer, and would welcome another United Nations Security Council resolution. The decision reflected a wise deference to the widespread sentiment, at home and abroad, that the United States should go to war only if it has broad international support. In the aftermath of Mr. Powell's presentation, it also seemed to reflect a confidence in the administration that at the rate Mr. Hussein was burning his bridges, the additional time would help achieve a unanimous verdict at the Security Council.
If Mr. Hussein had hoped for a hung jury after Mr. Powell's summation, what he is hearing cannot be of comfort to him. Basically, it is that unless he starts telling the inspectors everything, and starts now, there may soon be no one left trying to hold the Americans back.
The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese still favor giving arms inspectors more time. But even France acknowledged that Iraq was undermining diplomatic efforts by blatantly failing to show even a smidgen of good faith, and it suggested that Feb. 14 was a reasonable deadline for Iraq to start complying with U.N. orders to disarm.
Mr. Hussein is a cagey despot, and he is certain to use the coming week to make a dramatic concession or two. But Hans Blix, the chief inspector for chemical and biological weapons, has demonstrated a stern resistance to eyewash, and the Security Council seems to be tiring of Mr. Hussein's antics. Coercive diplomacy has its limits — it didn't budge Mr. Hussein from Kuwait a decade ago. But it is well worth trying.
nytimes.com
Divisive Diplomacy With Europe
The NATO alliance is facing what may be its greatest crisis in a generation - an unnecessary argument about whether to fortify Turkish defenses in advance of a war in Iraq. Obviously, Turkey should get what it needs. But this has become a charged debate because it is a proxy for another more fundamental argument - whether our allies should be expected merely to accede to American policy. The question of war in Iraq has turned into far too personal a dispute over American leadership. The French, who are leading the rebellion, are showing poor judgment. But the fault lies as well with the Bush administration's destructive ``with us or against us'' approach, which is being foolishly applied to some of our most important allies.
There's plenty of room for healthy debate in NATO, the United Nations Security Council and other international bodies about how and at what pace to proceed in disarming Iraq. But what's happening now is far less constructive. The resulting public squabbling is not helping efforts to solve the Iraq crisis and threatens to undermine longer-term American interests.
It's no secret that America, France and Germany have serious disagreements about the next steps in disarming Iraq. While Washington is pushing for an early resort to military force, France favors strengthened inspections for now and wants any eventual use of force to be authorized by the Security Council. Germany, for its part, opposes military action under any circumstances. These differences are likely to come to a head after international weapons inspectors make their next report to the Security Council at the end of this week.
That's where this issue ought to be debated, not as part of the NATO discussion on defending Turkey, where it erupted yesterday. Turkey, which borders Iraq and reasonably fears Iraqi reprisals, has a legitimate need for Patriot missiles, Awacs surveillance aircraft and units specialized in combating biological and chemical attacks. NATO is capable of providing these, but so are its individual members, including the United States. Washington was wrong to strong-arm the issue to a decision in a divided NATO. The result was that France, Germany and Belgium blocked an initial American-backed proposal. They said it was premature and overly broad and would appear to commit NATO to supporting a war the Security Council had not yet approved.
As a result, NATO appears more publicly divided than it has since the Reagan era. That isn't a smart way for the countries on either side of the Iraq debate to pressure Baghdad to take the overdue steps on disarmament that could still avoid war. It may well be true, as Pentagon hawks argue, that the United States can easily defeat Iraq without help from the anemic military forces of many of its European allies. Yet America very much needs broad European support in fighting terror and will need more of it in reconstructing Iraq. Forcing splits and quarrels within the Atlantic alliance isn't a wise policy.
NATO meets again today to consider a more narrowly drawn Turkish request that would allow the alliance to provide Turkey with the help it needs while deferring larger questions of diplomatic strategy on Iraq. That approach deserves unanimous trans-Atlantic support.
nytimes.com |
