The Global Insecurity of the American Threat
- In a world with nations willing to have stood against imperial Soviet
Russia but unwilling to stand against imperial democratic America, the
UN Security Council is absolete. The United Nations are not united in
their own collective self-defense thus their security council can
provide no security for members who cannot defend themselves against
nuclear powers. Global tyranny has taken center stage and Aryan
supremacy has become a house united against a disunited world.
Fear of U.S. Power Shapes Iraq Debate
As U.N. Considers War Resolution, a Distrust of American Policy
By Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 30, 2002; Page A16
The intense debate in the United Nations Security Council over a
resolution mandating new weapons
inspections in Iraq has boiled down to a few phrases deep with meaning
for diplomats. But the
seven-week battle has masked a larger struggle over the projection and
containment of U.S. power,
diplomats and analysts said.
While officials reported some progress on a deal yesterday, narrowing
differences between France
and the United States on whether further consultations are necessary to
trigger military action, the
negotiations have done little to assuage fears abroad that the Bush
administration is merely seeking an
international imprimatur for war. In the past two years, the
administration has rejected international
agreements covering topics from global warming to war crimes, leaving
allies deeply cynical about its
motives in going to the United Nations now, according to U.N. diplomats.
"The whole debate is about two issues," said an envoy whose country
is one of the five permanent
Security Council members. "One is Iraq. The other is U.S. power in the
world. The second issue is the
bigger part of the debate."
The U.S. draft resolution calls for tougher inspections measures,
granting unfettered access to U.N.
arms experts throughout Iraq. It says Iraq is in "material breach" of
its U.N. obligations to disarm and
declares that any failure by Iraq to comply with the resolution "shall
constitute a further material breach"
-- a phrase previously invoked by Washington to justify military action.
The resolution warns Baghdad of
"serious consequences" if it continues to impede inspectors.
Hans Blix, the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, is to meet separately
today with Vice President
Cheney and President Bush, officials said. A U.S. official described the
meetings as part of discussions
with Blix to make sure the administration understands how he intends to
exercise his authority if
inspections begin again in Iraq.
On Monday, Blix said he would have "great practical difficulties" in
taking Iraqi scientists and their
families out of Iraq for interviews -- a proposal mentioned by Bush in
two speeches -- "unless there was
cooperation by the Iraqi side." He also said Iraq could meet a U.S.
proposed deadline for providing a list
of its weapons within 30 days but probably could not provide an
exhaustive account of its civilian
chemical and biological programs that could be used for weapons.
Within the Security Council, diplomats said, there is increasing
distrust on both sides. Many
counterproposals made by the French and Russians -- who have objected
strongly to the U.S. resolution
-- have been to limit the U.S. ability to launch military action against
Iraq without returning to the Security
Council for authorization.
French President Jacques Chirac, at a recent gathering of
French-speaking nations in Beirut,
forcefully argued that war can only be used in self-defense or with the
backing of the international
"In the modern world, the use of force should only be a last, and
exceptional, resort," Chirac said. "It
should only be allowed in the case of legitimate defense, or by decision
of the competent international
authorities. Whether we are talking about making Iraq adhere to its
obligations, relaunching the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process or solving conflicts in Africa, the
same logic of legitimacy has to inspire
all of us, because only this firmly guards us against temptations of
U.S. officials fear that, if Iraq fails to comply with the
resolution, other nations will still be reluctant to
authorize military action. As a result, they said, the administration
has sought a resolution that would
leave countries little choice but to accept an eventual military
solution if Iraq fails to abide by any aspect
"This is why words are so critical and important now," said Ivo H.
Daalder, a Brookings Institution
fellow who served on the National Security Council staff in the Clinton
administration. "It is clear that
some of our closest friends, like the French, don't trust us."
Administration officials have said the best way to prevent a war is
to pass a strong resolution, but, as
one put it, the French can't drop the notion that the United States is
some sort of "cowboy hyperpower."
The Bush administration began its campaign for a new resolution at
about the same time it unveiled
its national security doctrine, which outlines the concept of preemptive
action to counter perceived
threats. The new doctrine unnerved even close allies, who feared that
the world's only superpower no
longer felt bound by the international rules established after World War
The French have tried to extract concessions from the United States
so that the resulting resolution
cannot be seen as a license for military action. But they don't want to
push the United States so far that
it abandons efforts to win a resolution, making the Security Council
A French official said yesterday it is necessary to craft a "very
clear" resolution "with no ambiguity
about what it means," to prevent member states from imposing their own
interpretation on clauses.
French officials are also wary about making a deal with the United
States without making certain that
Russia is comfortable with it.
The U.S. proposal envisioned a series of steps that the Iraqis must
take in response to the
resolution, including Baghdad's acceptance seven days after its
adoption. Iraq's failure to abide by any of
those steps might have triggered military action. Secretary of State
Colin L. Powell noted yesterday that
even if a negotiated resolution suggests Security Council action is
needed to approve military force, the
United States reserves the right to launch its own strike.
"I can't tell you now how long it might take them to consider such a
report or what action they might
take," Powell said. "But as their clock is ticking, there is a clock
that is also ticking on the U.S. side as
to whether or not the violation is of such a nature that the president
makes a judgment in due course that
he should act if the U.N. chooses not to act."
The key sticking point in the negotiations is the second reference to
"material breach," which says
the Security Council "decides" that any failure to comply by Iraq "shall
constitute a further material
breach." French officials say this could be a "hidden trigger" for
military action, since it predisposes a
decision by the Security Council before it has even met to consider the
nature of Iraqi behavior.
Another section of the resolution says the council would meet to
discuss any report by the weapons
inspectors that Iraq was not complying with the resolution.
In his report to the Security Council Monday, Blix said he recognized
that a "great responsibility"
would be placed upon him. He said he would report "only significant
results," a phrase that indicates if a
gate or door in an inspected facility is locked or a temporary
obstruction is met, that will not immediately
be reported back to the Security Council as a potential breach.
When it does come to significant matters, he said, "We report. It is
the Security Council and its
members who decide" whether there would be peace or war.
Staff writer Colum Lunch at the United Nations contributed to this