Bush Claims License to Attack

U.N. Leaders Say No

BY PHYLLIS BENNIS

The Bush administration is claiming congressional, electoral and United Nations support for its plan to invade Iraq. The danger of devastating war is mounting. But it is still not inevitable.

Eqbal Hassan and her children worry that the U.S. will soon invade Iraq.

The U.N. resolution on Iraq was not the clear-cut U.S. victory that the president claims. It was a compromise reached through eight weeks of wrangling between the U.S. and other countries such as France, Russia and Mexico. These countries were openly trying to stave off a U.S. attack on Iraq and block U.S. unilateralism.

Except for John Negroponte of the U.S., every U.N. ambassador, even the British, has made clear that the Nov. 8 vote provided no authorization for war- no "automaticity" in U.N.-speak. Not-ing that the resolution requires a U.N. Security Council meeting in the event of alleged Iraqi non-compliance, French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte said: "France welcomes the elimination from the resolution of all ambiguity on this point and the elimination of all automaticity." Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser said force would only be justified "with the prior, explicit authorization of the Security Council."

CONSTRAINING THE U.S.

For virtually every country on the Security Council, the U.N. vote was not about constraining Iraq, it was about constraining the U.S. The message was: if the U.S. desires to launch a massive attack, it will have to return to the U.N. and win its approval. If the president makes war without U.N. backing, it will be violating the United Nations charter and international law.

Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the U.N., put it bluntly: "The issue is disarmament. Regime change is not on the agenda."

On the other hand, the resolution calls this Saddam Hussein's "final chance" and sets intrusive terms for inspections that the U.S. will certainly argue that Iraq fails to meet. It does not explicitly prohibit a unilateral U.S. military intervention. In this sense, the resolution reflects the heavy-handed domination of the United States over the United Nations and the rest of the world.

The administration's drive for war in Iraq is rooted in its desire to control oil and enhance its superpower status, not concern about weapons of mass destruction. President Bush clearly reserves the right to attack Iraq unilaterally and says he will not be limited by the U.N. resolution. Ambassador Negroponte asserts, "This resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq."

PUBLIC OPPOSES UNILATERALISM

However, polls have shown that only a quarter of Americans support attacking Iraq without U.N. approval. And hundreds of thousands of antiwar protesters have thronged the streets of London, Washington and Florence. So, should Washington ultimately decide-or feel forced to decide-to pull back from the brink, the new U.N. resolution actually provides them a face-saving way out.

Nothing in the resolution gives Washington the right to determine whether Iraq is in "material breach" of its commitments, or to decide what to do if there is such a breach. But President Bush claims exactly those rights.

The administration is therefore pleased that the resolution imposes harsh conditions upon Iraq. Hans Blix, director of the U.N. inspection agency, said that allowing Iraq only 30 days to pro-vide a full inventory of its biological, chemical and nuclear facilities might prove impossible. But failure to do so might well trigger a deadly U.S. attack.

The resolution also allows inspectors to violate Iraqi sovereignty. Inspectors can enter any site they wish, including the presidential mansion. They may also establish U.N.-controlled "no-fly," "no-drive" and "frozen" zones of unlimited size around any and all inspection sites. If Iraq impedes these actions, the U.S. may claim the right to invade.

The inspectors are also authorized to spirit Iraqi scientists and their families out of the country for interviews, and to provide them refuge in another country. This means that Iraqis will be subject to U.S. threats and bribery regarding claims of asylum.

Immediate clashes may break out over the already existing "no-fly" zones in Iraq where the United States and the United Kingdom are regularly bombing. There is no U.N. authorization for these zones, but Washington claims the bombing is "enforcing U.N. resolutions." The new resolution prohibits Iraq from threatening "hostile acts directed against ... any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution." If Iraq so much as locks its radar on these bombers, the U.S. could claim an Iraqi violation and attack.

The burning questions of the coming weeks are: Can U.N. leaders and U.S. allies stand firm against a U.S. attack? Can the growing global and U.S. antiwar movements grow strong enough to stop a war before it begins? Or will the administration plunge the world into a horrible war that will heighten the cycle of violence ignited by Sept. 11?

Phyllis Bennis is author ofBefore and After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisisand a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.

War Times/Tiempo de Guerras is a fiscally sponsored project of the
Center for Third World Organizing. • P.O. Box 22748 • Oakland CA 94609
www.war-times.org • info@war-times.org
© Copyright 2002–2008