The UN Will Never Authorize Force In Iraq
I may end up being wrong here, but I don't think the UN Security Council will ever authorize a use of force against Iraq. France and Russia were considering a new U.S. compromise for a Security Council resolution on Iraq, with Moscow saying for the first time Friday that it might agree to military action if Baghdad fails to cooperate with weapons inspections. That sentence is misleading becuase the only reason they are considering the new proposal is that the United States, supported by Britain, dropped a demand that a resolution explicitly authorize military force against Iraq.
Here's France's idea for what to do when/if inspections go awry: Once a failure is reported, the Security Council would convene immediately "to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all the relevant council resolutions in order to restore international peace and security." So once Iraq doesn't comply, the French will turn around and simply say that full compliance isn't needed.
The Russian's ideas for dealing with a defiant Iraq aren't much different: "If the inspectors began to work in Iraq and in the course of this work, problems arise, the inspectors should report what problems have arisen. Then the U.N. Security Council should again consider this issue and decide whether harsher measures, right up to the use of force, are required," Ivanov said at a news conference. Again with the 'maybe full compliance isn't necessary' language. And the harsher measures go right up to - but not including - the use of force.
Make no mistake - we are getting nothing from the UN. But Charles Krauthammer doesn't think we need anything from them anyway. The war ended in 1991, not in a treaty or even in a truce but in a cease-fire, a "suspension" of hostilities conditioned on Hussein's disarmament. Having not disarmed, he is in violation of the cease-fire. The suspension is thus unsuspended. Q.E.D. If this seems like legal quibbling to you, don't blame me. I believe that the entire notion of "U.N. authority" is nonsense in the first place. But for those who feel that the United States may not defend itself without reference to some piece of U.N. paper, the paper is there. The case is clear -- even State Department lawyers should be able to make it.
I also think Krauthammer's point is one of the main reasons that we won't get another resolution from the UN. The other Security Council members know that we don't technically need one to go into Iraq - and so they can look like good guys to the Arab world by standing up to us on the new resolution - yet get all the benefit of Saddam being ousted when we go in despite the lack of a new resolution. They get to play both sides of the same issue - its actually very good politics.
Here's France's idea for what to do when/if inspections go awry: Once a failure is reported, the Security Council would convene immediately "to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all the relevant council resolutions in order to restore international peace and security." So once Iraq doesn't comply, the French will turn around and simply say that full compliance isn't needed.
The Russian's ideas for dealing with a defiant Iraq aren't much different: "If the inspectors began to work in Iraq and in the course of this work, problems arise, the inspectors should report what problems have arisen. Then the U.N. Security Council should again consider this issue and decide whether harsher measures, right up to the use of force, are required," Ivanov said at a news conference. Again with the 'maybe full compliance isn't necessary' language. And the harsher measures go right up to - but not including - the use of force.
Make no mistake - we are getting nothing from the UN. But Charles Krauthammer doesn't think we need anything from them anyway. The war ended in 1991, not in a treaty or even in a truce but in a cease-fire, a "suspension" of hostilities conditioned on Hussein's disarmament. Having not disarmed, he is in violation of the cease-fire. The suspension is thus unsuspended. Q.E.D. If this seems like legal quibbling to you, don't blame me. I believe that the entire notion of "U.N. authority" is nonsense in the first place. But for those who feel that the United States may not defend itself without reference to some piece of U.N. paper, the paper is there. The case is clear -- even State Department lawyers should be able to make it.
I also think Krauthammer's point is one of the main reasons that we won't get another resolution from the UN. The other Security Council members know that we don't technically need one to go into Iraq - and so they can look like good guys to the Arab world by standing up to us on the new resolution - yet get all the benefit of Saddam being ousted when we go in despite the lack of a new resolution. They get to play both sides of the same issue - its actually very good politics.
# | October 18, 2002