Hillary:
Thanks for your reply. Since you are bowing out, I'll indulge myself in a reply to you, but wont expect a further round of debate.
You mentioned that the UN acted without mandate in Yugoslavia. I confess to confusion as to your meaning, for it was NATO that acted in Yugoslavia, without UN mandate. The UN did not act, because the security council knew that Russia would veto any authorization of military action. Yes the situation there was one of local ethnic cleansing. One would think that the Iraq situation, involving possible weapons of mass destruction, would galvanise the UN to greater levels of action. Accountants do have an annoying expectation for figures to add up (occasionally we're surprised when they do). Maybe the UN needs more accountants.
the Iraq regime say that they have complied with all the UN resolutions!
They do indeed. All, what, seventeen of them now? I'm reminded of the old joke about English policemen: "Halt, or I'll say halt again!" The UN version is "comply with our resolution, or we'll make another resolution!" Have they complied though? Let me requote 1441:
not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles
I'm sure you're aware that Mr. Blix' latest report contained the finding of a previously undeclared unmanned aerial vehicle. This was not declared within the 30 day deadline. The Iraqi regime is thus shown to be in breach of 1441. I can't understand what's so difficult to understand about that. And again, the US/UK is under no obligation whatsoever to present evidence that Iraq has breached the resolutions. Iraq was under obligation to present "an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure" because as 1441 said " Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)". You could say that Iraq has been proven guilty for twelve years, and was given a final chance to demonstrate their reformation. They didn't take it.
Why is it then that in this situation, with the same regime in place, the US/UK have lost the confidence of many of the UN member nations in this latest military venture? Have they suddenly become self-serving cowards or are they proceeding with prudent caution?
A question also phrased as "how could the US have lost so much goodwill in a year?" I wouldn't call them "self-serving cowards." I would opine that they are acting in their own self-interest, as all people and nations do. Put quite simply, the governments that have apparently "lost confidence" do not consider themselves to be at risk from Saddam Hussein, while they do see an advantage to their own situation in opposing the US/UK position. I think this is especially true of the recent actions of the French government, who have seen a chance to increase French influence in the UN and the EU at the expense of the despised Anglos by putting themselves at the head of the anti-war faction. I also think that most of the confidence and sympathy offered after 9-11 was of a shallow and transitory emotional nature. Once "compassion fatigue" set in, it became business as usual i.e. self-interest with a liberal splash of Anti-Americanism thrown in.
One other thing to consider: the UN estimates that sanctions have resulted in the premature deaths of around 700,000 children. About 5,000 children a month, in other words. Those sanctions will remain in effect while the UN bickers about inspections. Give the inspectors another month? 5,000 children. Six months? 30,000 children. The UN is excellent with statistics. But remove the Iraqi regime, and the need for sanctions is removed. Remove the regime, and the UN and the West will be able to freely send aid to the Iraqi people.
"But a war will cost thousands of lives", is the response. So will the status quo. Remember those 5,000 children a month. It is not known how many lives a war will cost. This war will be different to the Gulf War, because weapons are vastly different now than they were then. 90% of weapons will be "smart" in the upcoming war, as opposed to 10% in the Gulf War, for example.
In all of this debate going on, it is quite remarkable how little the question: "what is best for the Iraqi people?" is asked. Well, 5,000 children dying a month is not very good for them, is it? Being gassed and shot in large numbers by a power-mad dictator isn't so wonderful either. Being reduced to disease-ridden poverty by UN sanctions doesn't really fall into the category of "best" either.
Perhaps the next time Mr. Chirac shows that the Vichy spirit is thriving in the Paris of 2003, with absurd statements like "war is always the worst option", he might give a thought to the 15,000 children who have died prematurely because the UN doesn't have the balls to enforce its own resolutions.
Expatbrit