10 March 2003
"Why We Need a Second U.N. Resolution," by Senator Joseph Biden
(The Washington Post 03/10/03 op-ed) (910) (Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., (D-Del.), is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This op-ed column was published in the Washington Post March 10 and is in the public domain. No republication restrictions.) (begin byliner) Why We Need a Second U.N. Resolution By Joseph R. Biden Jr. France, Russia and Germany are engaged in a game of dangerous brinkmanship at the United Nations. Some in the Bush administration have responded in kind. Together, they threaten to drive the interests of our countries over a cliff. There is still time to pull back from the precipice and disarm Iraq without dividing the Atlantic alliance and debilitating the Security Council. That will require real leadership on both sides of the Atlantic. President Bush was right to take the Iraq issue to the United Nations; Secretary of State Colin Powell has been valiant in his efforts to build consensus there. But for some in the administration, not going to war has never been an option, no matter what Iraq does. That became clear last week when the White House -- in the middle of the diplomatic endgame -- said that even if Iraq gives up all its weapons, that's not good enough; Saddam Hussein has to go. I support that goal. But regime change is not what the Security Council endorsed in Resolution 1441. Moving the goalposts this late in the game is a bad way to win friends and influence allies. Similarly, for some in Europe, going to war has never been an option, no matter what Iraq does not do. Resolution 1441 requires Baghdad to make a full, accurate and final accounting of its weapons programs and to actively cooperate with the inspectors. Four months later, Iraq has not done so. And just as it has spent the past 12 years shirking its obligation to disarm, Iraq will spend the years ahead building up an arsenal of destruction if we fail to enforce the Persian Gulf War terms of surrender. Yet France and its followers now demand more inspectors and more time, while ruling out deadlines and the use of force. That tells Hussein to sit tight and watch the West divide itself. This standoff has produced an unprecedented level of anger with our allies that is bound to corrode cooperation beyond Iraq, including cooperation in the war on terror. The best way out is a second Security Council resolution -- a resolution that, for different reasons, the United States and Europe share a profound interest in achieving. For the United States, a second resolution is not a legal requirement, but it is a strategic one. It would give political cover to key allies such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. And it would greatly increase the number of countries willing to join our coalition. This would help spread the risks of military action and the massive burden of putting Iraq back together -- something President Bush does not like to talk about. Invading and occupying Iraq under a U.N., rather than a U.S., flag would minimize resentment, making us less of a target for malcontents around the world. Failure to achieve a second resolution would isolate the United States instead of Iraq. For Europe, a second resolution is probably the last best chance to avoid war. Solidarity at the United Nations would concentrate Hussein's mind -- and the minds of his senior advisers -- on the need to choose now between giving up weapons and giving up power. There is a chance, however remote, that Hussein will make the right choice, or that the choice will be made for him. A French and Russian veto would gravely wound the Security Council, denying both countries an important forum for leveraging their power and advancing their international agendas. Getting to yes on a second resolution will require hard-liners in the Bush administration to do something for which they have shown little aptitude: compromise. Instead of seeking a resolution that says the game is up and war is on, we should show enough flexibility to bring the Security Council with us while keeping the pressure on Hussein. The resolution should combine points that France and others say they want -- more time for Iraq to meet specific disarmament demands -- with a bottom line that we need: a deadline and a clear commitment to use force. We should support a new resolution that lists very specifically the tasks we believe Iraq must accomplish to show it is disarming; sets an early deadline for compliance, say the end of March; and makes clear that if Iraq does not meet the deadline, the international community will use force to disarm it. Saddam Hussein is relentlessly pursuing weapons of mass destruction, abusing his own people and making a mockery of the United Nations. With or without a second U.N. resolution, and barring a coup or last-minute conversion by Hussein, the United States will act to disarm him. But we will be infinitely better off if we act with the United Nations and with as many friends as possible -- not in spite of them. We can succeed if we show real leadership -- the kind of leadership that inspires others to follow. (The writer is a U.S. senator from Delaware and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.) (end byliner) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
