February 17, 2003
Existential Questions At The UN
I suppose we're all pondering the same simple question: if the UN won't vote that a resolution has been violated, has it been violated? The diplomats there seem to agree with Captain Collins of the USS San Pablo (from the movie The Sand Pebbles) that what matters isn't the events of the day, but how we record those events.
Iraq is in violation of numerous binding UN resolutions, most of which date to the end of the Gulf War. The latest, Resolution 1441, makes it clear that Iraq's failure to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction will result in "serious consequences". It isn't the job of the inspectors to disarm Iraq, or contain Iraq, or do anything but verify that Iraq has disarmed itself. Iraq clearly hasn't done that. The UN response so far has been to ignore its own resolution as to what constitutes a material breach and make up the rules as it goes along.
The UN is in the position of a nice parent with a bratty child. As long as the child knows that no matter how much mom and/or dad blusters and threatens no real punishment will be forthcoming, the child will continue in his bratty ways. He knows "I'm not going to tell you again" in fact means all I'll ever do is tell you, over and over, and hope you grow weary of the sound of my voice. In the UN case, not only is mom unwilling to follow through, she's trying to keep dad from doing anything either.
I happened to catch Saturday Night Live the other night. They had a skit where Bush announces that the US is no longer interested in Iraq anymore - they can do whatever they want, we don't care. I'm not sure what the joke was supposed to be (a feeling I typically get while watching SNL which is why I do it so rarely now), but it got me to thinking, what would happen if Bush really would make that declaration. How long do you think inspectors would be in Iraq - hours or days?
Posted by Kevin Murphy at February 17, 2003 01:29 PM | International Politics
