Tweet
French Foreign Minister de Vellepin indicated yesterday that France would wage a major diplomatic fight, including possible use of its veto power, to prevent the U.N. Security Council from passing a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. See this article in this morning's Washington Post.
I am not particularly in favor of invading Iraq. We are currently playing diplomatic poker, and right now it appears that all we have in our hand is a pair of sixes. However, I find these comments disturbing on three grounds.
Frist, a few months back we went through a protracted discussion at the UN about whether there needed to be an additional resolution before attacking Iraq. We reached some kind of tenuous agreement, and now it appears that the French have not moved one inch from their original position.
Second, it appears that both the French and the Germans are not quite straight on their facts. According to de Villepin,
According to German Foreign Minister Fischer
I will be the first to admit that there is no smoking gun. However, the UN inspectors indicated there are large gaps in the Iraqi declaration; there is no accounting for materials known to be in their possession during the prior inspections; and three thousand pages of classified documents which appear to be responsive to the UN request were found in the home of an Iraqi scientist. Do de Villepin and Fischer know something that the rest of us don’t, and if so would they please share it?
Lastly there is the question of timing. The Security Council resolution passed unanimously Nov. 8 gave Iraq "a last chance" to meet its obligations. now the French, Germans, and Chinese appear to indicate that the upcoming report should be regarded as a "new beginning" rather than an end to inspections. If so, why should the word of the UN Security Council be taken seriously?
Colin Powell busted his ass to get the US to play ball with the UN. And what we appear to have for our diplomatic efforts is a failure of other parties to negotiate, a likely willful ignorance of the facts, and little reason to take the word of the UN Security Council seriously. If this is the case, many Americans will wonder why we should even bother.
I am not particularly in favor of invading Iraq. We are currently playing diplomatic poker, and right now it appears that all we have in our hand is a pair of sixes. However, I find these comments disturbing on three grounds.
Frist, a few months back we went through a protracted discussion at the UN about whether there needed to be an additional resolution before attacking Iraq. We reached some kind of tenuous agreement, and now it appears that the French have not moved one inch from their original position.
Second, it appears that both the French and the Germans are not quite straight on their facts. According to de Villepin,
"Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process."
"Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the U.N. team on the ground.
Lastly there is the question of timing. The Security Council resolution passed unanimously Nov. 8 gave Iraq "a last chance" to meet its obligations. now the French, Germans, and Chinese appear to indicate that the upcoming report should be regarded as a "new beginning" rather than an end to inspections. If so, why should the word of the UN Security Council be taken seriously?
Colin Powell busted his ass to get the US to play ball with the UN. And what we appear to have for our diplomatic efforts is a failure of other parties to negotiate, a likely willful ignorance of the facts, and little reason to take the word of the UN Security Council seriously. If this is the case, many Americans will wonder why we should even bother.
of deterrence still holds, thus Iraq losses such wars. And as for Saddam giving WMD to terrorists , well, I find the notion so utterly laughable that that is all I will say about it. Why should the French, Russians, or Chinese worry about Saddam? What threat is he to them? Answer: 0. He is also a 0 threat to the US, but we have villified him (somehting he earned, but we have gone somewhat overboard) for 10 years, so he makes a fine scapegoat for the admin. to experiment over.
Comment