World Tribune.com


Iraq Ñ Truth or consequences?


See the John Metzler archive

By John Metzler
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

October 4, 2002

UNITED NATIONS Ñ If and when UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq, seeking out the truth about SaddamÕs weapons of mass destruction, the issue then becomes what will the consequence be for the Baghdad regime should they revert to the old shell game of hiding, shifting, and blocking? Disarming Iraq may not be so simple under the best of conditions but one must presume that the conditions will be nebulous and perhaps openly confrontational and the final results inconclusive. ThatÕs where the problems start.

In early 2000, the Security Council tasked Hans Blix to lead the revived arms inspection teams that were booted out of Baghdad in late 1998. Now the United Nations Monitoring and, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) is prepared to have its chance at discovering and bottling-up SaddamÕs nuclear genie as well as his accumulated and easily usable assortment of biological and chemical weapons, most of which probably had their genesis in former Soviet labs.

Blix, a former Swedish diplomat, follows in the footsteps of previous inspection team leaders including the focused and assertive fellow Swede Rolf Ekeus and the tough and tumble Aussie Richard Butler. A classic compromise candidate, Blix was the choice of Russia and France, over then weak American objections.

Though Blix has been stigmatized as hardly the Òtough guyÓ needed for such an operation, the mission revolves around both mandate and macht. As this column stated at the time of his appointment, do some members of the Council wish the teams not to find too much, or just enough, to satisfy critics and then sign off on Iraqi disarmament compliance?

Naturally one must assume that anything of real value has long ago been hidden in the vastness of a country that is bigger than California!

The other point is enforcement. Under the best of circumstances the UNMOVIC inspectors will confront the cat and mouse game of discovering a possible site only to face confrontations with Iraqi authorities that could easily escalate to taking the inspectors hostage. What will the consequence be beyond shocked hand-ringing and disbelief?

After achieving vital bi-partisan Congressional support for use of the military option against Saddam HusseinÕs Iraq, President George W. Bush has assembled another piece in the larger geo-political puzzle. Now securing a tough new UN Security Council resolution which would set a time frame for disarmament as well as outline the clear and unambiguous consequences for non-compliance becomes the hurdle.

Washington presses for an ultimatum to Iraq; identify, verify, and disarm Ñ OR ELSE. Other Council members take a more piecemeal and drawn out path towards disarmament. Given the players on the fifteen member Council of which veto holding Russia, Communist China, and France hold a totally different threat perception than does the US or the UK, one presumes that only a diluted version of WashingtonÕs resolution can pass.

Diplomatic support for the US attacking Iraq is anything but decisive Ñ even major NATO allies are at best ambivalent or antagonistic towards any Anglo/American military operation which is not specifically authorized by a UN Security Council resolution. The US has played its diplomatic hand maladroitly while facing vocal opposition from France, Germany, and even Canada, by not making the right moves to assuage such concerns.

Saddam still calculates that diplomatic dithering may yet save him from the political Armageddon he so callously courts. For President Bush, the line in the sand will soon be drawn around SaddamÑeither the truth or the consequences.

John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.

October 4, 2002




See current edition of

Return toWorld Tribune.com's Front Cover
Your window on the world

Contact World Tribune.com at world@worldtribune.com