U.N. rebuffs call to war
ANALYSIS: Crunch time for Bush as clock ticks
By Marc Sandalow
Washington Bureau Chief
The San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday, February 15, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington -- President Bush, who once preached the virtues of humility in the conduct of foreign policy, now faces a seemingly impossible task of disarming Saddam Hussein without looking like an international bully.
Friday's developments at the United Nations made plain that much of the world remains deeply opposed to a U.S. attack on Iraq, which will be underscored by hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters around the globe this weekend.
As the U.S.-imposed clock on Iraq's compliance with U.N. weapons inspectors ticks dangerously close to the end, Bush is approaching a difficult choice between backing down from his repeated threats to forcibly remove Hussein, or acting without the United Nations' expressed approval.
Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to concede diplomatic defeat as he rushed into a round of meetings hoping to bridge the gap between the United States and its doubters, who include France, Germany, Russia and China.
But the uncharacteristic applause that greeted the anti-war statements of the French and Russian foreign ministers in the normally placid United Nation's chambers revealed the depth of global emotions lining up against the U.S. position.
"Why not give peace a chance?" asked French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, uttering a phrase that is sure to be spoken, chanted and sung at rallies from San Francisco to Paris.
The report by U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix -- which documented noncompliance by Iraq and instances of improved cooperation -- did nothing to move the reluctant nations closer to the United States -- all but dashing hopes of winning a swift U.N. vote of support for an American-led strike.
If Bush gives the order to attack without U.N. approval "the U.S. will be seen as a rogue superpower, an international outlaw," said University of San Francisco Professor Stephen Zunes, author of "Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism."
"The focus of attention will not be on Saddam Hussein's lack of full cooperation with inspectors. Most of the world will see it, rightly or wrongly, as an act of aggression to build a new American imperium."
A DANGEROUS EXAMPLE
Some argue that a U.S.-led pre-emptive strike without something resembling full international backing will seriously damage the country's moral standing and make it harder to persuade other countries not to act on their own.
"What is going to stop Pakistan from invading India when they feel threatened," said former Sen. George McGovern, whose opposition to the Vietnam War was the linchpin of his unsuccessful 1972 bid for the presidency. "It weakens our moral stature."
Bush's aides are quick to point out that the United States does have many nations standing beside it, including Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel and most of Eastern Europe. And U.N. Resolution 1441, passed by a 15-0 vote by the U.N. Security Council last fall called for "serious consequences" if Iraq did not comply with weapons inspectors.
Yet even many who support taking action, regardless of world opinion, recognize that acting now, without broadening the coalition or perhaps winning another vote from the Security Council, will have serious consequences.
"Of course, it will raise the political costs of a war, and I think that is what France is counting on, that the Bush administration will blink" said James Phillips, an expert on Middle East affairs at the Heritage Foundation.
Some of the political damage will occur at home. Nearly two out of three Americans approve of the United States taking military action against Iraq to remove Hussein from power, according to a poll published Friday by the New York Times. However, when asked whether the U.S. should take military action soon, or give the U.N weapons inspectors more time -- which is the French and German position -- fewer than 4 in 10 supported the White House position of acting soon.
CONDITIONAL SUPPORT
And many members of Congress, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have conditioned their support on strong international approval.
"I believe it would be a tremendous mistake for the United States to unilaterally attack Iraq, and I urge the administration to go slow, let the inspectors do their work, and build that international coalition," Feinstein said on the Senate floor in late January.
To many who back Hussein's removal, such political considerations hold little weight.
"I think Bush still has to do the right thing -- even though it's not politically popular in the U.S., or Europe, or the Mideast," Phillips said.
The White House on Friday offered no signs of backing down.
"Saddam Hussein is used to deceiving the world and continues to do so. Saddam Hussein has got ties to terrorist networks," Bush told law enforcement agents gathered at the FBI building. "Saddam Hussein is a danger, and that's why he will be disarmed, one way or the other."
Such talk is a big change from before Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush pursued a far more modest international agenda. As he eyed the presidency, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush spoke often about the dangers of the United States overstepping its bounds as the world's remaining superpower.
"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. " Bush said during his second debate with then- Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. "We've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom."
Powell suggested Friday that even the appearance of solidarity was crucial to the hopes of unseating Hussein without war.
"I would say there is still a chance for peace," Powell told CNN outside the U.N. General Assembly hall. "But we will not realize that peace . . . if we ever look like we do not have the will to disarm Iraq."
Powell made clear that to the Bush administration, expressing that will meant not backing down from the threat of war. It was clear Friday that not all of the world shares that view.
sfgate.com |
