 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
November
8, 2002 11:40 a.m. By Ross Douthat |
|
n
a shocking, shocking development, just three days after the Republicans
gained control of all three branches of government, the Security Council
has unanimously approved
a resolution that would send U.N. inspectors back into Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. According to the New York Times, "a breakthrough in
negotiations came Thursday when France and the United States reached a
critical agreement to address French concerns that the resolution could
automatically trigger an attack on Iraq." Doubtless there was no
connection between this sudden deal and the midterm elections — after
all, no one has ever accused the French of holding a finger up
to see which way the wind is blowing, and certainly not when grave matters
of global security are on the table. No doubt the sudden willingness of
the previously recalcitrant Russians and Syrians to join their voices
to the chorus was likewise prompted by the most high-minded of motives.
In any event, the long grind of negotiation has finally reached an end. According to the Washington Post, the turning point came when "President Bush and French President Jacques Chirac agreed yesterday on final wording for a United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq, clearing the way for a vote on the measure today and the possible dispatch of weapons inspectors to Baghdad within weeks . . . A Chirac spokeswoman said that there was a 'positive dynamic' during a telephone call Chirac placed to Bush yesterday morning." (A positive dynamic . . . now where did that come from, do you suppose?)
The New York Times carries a news analysis, meanwhile, focusing on yesterday's Bush press conference — his first since Tuesday's triumph. "President Bush gave notice to the United Nations and to the American people today," the Times writes, "that the political season is over and that the time has come to disarm Saddam Hussein — and that it may take war to accomplish that goal." Quoth the president: "I think a lot of people are saying, you know, gosh, we hope we don't have war . . . [and] I feel the same way. I hope we don't have war. I hope this can be done peacefully. It's up to Saddam Hussein, however, to make that choice."
How and when exactly the Iraqi dictator will make that choice is spelled out by USA Today, which reports that the U.N. resolution creates a series of deadlines. By November 15, "Iraq must accept terms and pledge to comply," and by December 8, "Iraq must declare all aspects of its chemical, biological and nuclear programs." If these conditions are met, U.N. weapons inspectors would resume inspections on December 23, and they would be required to give a report to the Security Council no later than February 21, 2003. At that point, if Iraq remains recalcitrant, the Security Council could approve the use of force; if they fail to do so, however, there is nothing in the resolution text to prevent the United States from going it alone.
USA Today
reports that "diplomats see three ways the confrontation with Iraq
could play out:
" Iraq could comply completely and provide a full declaration of
all its banned weapons programs and unfettered access to inspectors. Virtually
no one expects this to happen.
" Iraq could string along U.N. weapons inspectors through the optimal
winter months for a U.S. invasion. Even if Iraq fails to live up to specific
provisions of the new resolution, the Bush administration could decide
to seek the council's blessing for military action. That could take months.
" Iraq could frustrate inspectors so obviously and so quickly that
the United States and Britain discuss the issue with the council briefly
and decide to attack late this year or early next year."
The house is betting on number three. As another USA Today article headlines it, "Iraq Expert at Blocking Inspectors." Soon enough, we may find out how expert they are at blocking U.S. troops.
— Ross Douthat is an editorial analyst for The Atlantic Monthly.