The world cheered last week when Iraq allowed the unconditional return of weapons inspectors, who will continue their search for the country’s weapons of mass destruction programs. Unfortunately, the cheer precedes any definitive action, as it has always done during the repeated standoffs with Saddam Hussein over weapons inspection.
‘#9;Therefore, we should not expect any countries, or the UN, to take action this time around if Saddam creates yet another standoff by expelling the inspectors as he has done three times in the last five years. America must act swiftly and unilaterally if it wants to prevent Saddam from buying himself any more time to bolster his weapons programs.
‘#9;After the Gulf War, the UN Security Council’s Resolution 687 mandated that Iraq destroy all chemical and biological weapons and allow a task force to check the country’s compliance with the resolution. However, the Council has been powerless in enforcing its own rule again and again. The best that the UN can do is to “unanimously condemn” Iraq;s actions each time they expel weapons inspectors. In the age of terrorism and rogue nations, unanimous condemnation simply does not go very far–especially since the unsupervised time has given Saddam the opportunity to further expand his supply of weapons of mass destruction.
‘#9;The White House is absolutely right in dismissing Iraq’s acceptance of weapons inspectors as a tactical move.By appearing to comply with UN resolutions, as it has in the past, Iraq is attempting to portray the United States as an unprovoked, constant aggressor. Saddam has also repeatedly blamed US-led sanctions for the suffering of the Iraqi people. By making such claims, Saddam is trying to garner the sympathies of the world community in order to dodge a military attack–one that is long overdue considering his repeated defiance.
Unfortunately, he has been rather successful. Despite his weapons of mass destruction, despite his use of chemical weapons against his own people, (the Kurds in 1988-1989) despite his brutal execution of several of his own family members, many of our supposed allies along with the UN are not convinced that Saddam Hussein should be forcefully removed from power. The support of our most reliable ally, Britain, has been fickle at best. Germany has greatly condemned US military action. In fact, one official is so opposed to it that she reportedly compared Bush’s Iraq attack plans as a political diversion tactic that was often used by Adolf Hitler. Russia has given a big thumbs down on the plan too.
But, of course, it we can’t overlook the fact that each and every one of these countries has a political ulterior motive for not supporting our military plans. Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair faces opposition to an Iraqi strike in his own party in Parliament and amongst the British people.
Germany’s Prime Minister Gerald Schroeder figured out that he is gaining in the polls for the upcoming German election by not supporting a US campaign. And Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin does not want to miss out on the great amounts of cheap oil his country gets from trusty old trading partner Saddam, so he certainly is not interested in seeing a regime change either. In addition, Saddam is not nearly the threat to these countries as he is to the United States.
As a result, President Bush must be prepared to immediately send in our armed forces if history repeats itself and Saddam begins his cat and mouse game with the weapons inspectors yet again. The world has a particular agenda, and the UN is not capable of enforcing its plans because of this. With these unfortunate realities, America must focus on its own agenda.
There is no time to try and sway a world opinion that is not going to change. If Saddam expels the weapons inspectors, America must expel Saddam.
