Posted on 1-11-2002
Fear
of U.S. Shapes Iraq Debate
By Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writers,
Wednesday, October 30, 2002; Page A16 (Photo shows Hans Blix)
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 community.
"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 adventure."
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 of it. "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 II.
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 irrelevant.
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
|