Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, said today, "Many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for."
Blix added, "One must not jump to the conclusion that (the proscribed weapons) exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded."
UN Security Council Resolution 1441 says the UN Security Council "decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
To sum up: according to the UN inspectors, Iraq is not accounting for forbidden weapons. According to Resolution 1441, Iraq is therefore in material breach.
There is no way around this.
But, can it be fixed? Can the inspections yet "work"? What does it mean that inspections "work"?
UN Security Council Resolution 687, which ended the Gulf War, is clear on the purpose of inspections. It says that the Security Council "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
1. All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
2. All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities."
And that to implement this, a Special Comission shall be establish for the "inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself," as well as to accept those weapons from Iraq "for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all (the weapons)."
Inspections work if Iraq is honest to the UN about all questions about their weapons, and those weapons are submitted to the UN for destruction. That is the only standard by which inspections "work," if those things happen.
Yet, Blix says, "Many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for." Therefore, inspections are not working.
France says that inspections are working. Many people say Iraq is not in significant material breach. Both statements are above demonstrated to be false.
That said, what of war? Resolution 687 also says the UN Security Council "decides ... to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." The UN Security Council has already decided that if inspections do not work -- and they are not working, and there is no sign they will work -- that it will take further steps. The one thing I can say is that I am unconvinced there are not intermediate steps between inspections and renewed hostilities.
To you antiwar protestors, a word: I can't believe you will convince significant numbers of people by saying war is evil, Iraq is not in breach, inspections are working, other countries are just as bad, the US just wants oil, and other things that are wrong or miss the point. What we need are more people to make the case that though Iraq is bad, though Iraq is in material breach, though insepctions are not working, though the Security Council has decided to disarm Iraq through other means if inspections do not work, that the case has not been made that the step after failed inspections is war. Emphasize that there must be another way, that, as Colin Powell said today, war must be a last resort, and that you are not convinced we have reached the last resort. Offer alternatives. Say there are steps between inspections and war.
Make that case, and you have more of a chance of making a difference, I think. Make that case, and you can convince people like me.
Re:Another reasonable point to argue ...
pudge on 2003-02-15T12:23:31
And you therefore will not convince very many people. You are not addressing, in any way, the primary issue of disarmament, the issue which has been the primary focus of the UN resolutions, the issue which is before our leaders. You will only convince those people who already tend to agree with you, which isn't very helpful to your cause.Re:Another reasonable point to argue ...
dug on 2003-02-15T15:24:28
My goal (and the goal of protests in general) is not to convince other people to think like me. The goal is to convince the current administration that there is a large segment of the population that doesn't support their endeavors to go to war.
The latest polls (NYT/CBS) show the majority of Americans as unsupportive of military strikes without UN approval, and they show the majority of Americans supportive of more time for the inspectors. Bush has said repeatedly that he will gain the support of the American people before taking action. My goal is to convince him that I am not supportive, and by gathering in a large group to convince him that there are many people that he represents who are not supportive as well.
My goal in going to an anti-war demostration certainly isn't to convince you to change your mind (for some reason, I don't think it would be that easy (I'll have to remember to to practice my Jedi mind tricks);-).
Well, I'm off to the UN headquarters. There are some folks in office that need to hear my voice.Re:Another reasonable point to argue ...
pudge on 2003-02-15T18:17:06
The goal is to convince the current administration that there is a large segment of the population that doesn't support their endeavors to go to war.
And, what do you hope to accomplish by that? Do you think lack of support will change their minds, that they will wake up and say, "Well, we know inspections failed and that Iraq is in material breach, but because a large segment of America -- that knows who Joe Millionaire is, but has never heard of Hans Blix -- thinks we need to continue with inspections, let's do it!"
I don't think so.
To be perhaps more blunt: that Americans say they are supportive of more time for inspectors just shows the government they are not worth listening to.
You need to convince the government not that you don't support war, but that there are other options to address the real issue of disarmament. That is the only way you will make progress in this discussion. Your numbers do not matter. Your complaints about American foreign policy do not matter. Your feelings about war and death do not matter. All that matters is how to disarm Iraq.
You might feel better after the protest is done, but you won't have made any progress toward changing anything.
And one more thing: Americans were more against the Gulf War than the currently impending action. And yet when we first attacked, the Americans overwhelmingly supported it. Food for thought.Re:Another reasonable point to argue ...
jordan on 2003-02-15T17:43:39
- First of all, I do think that it's worth saying that other nations are just as bad,
inspections may work (for certain value of "work"),
I see no reason to believe inspections will "work" for any value of the term. Inspections didn't work for the allies after WWI in Germany, the UNSCOM inspections in Iraq didn't work (nothing was turned up for years until Saddam's son-in-law defected and told us where all the weapons were), and they didn't work in North Korea.
Well, if you in favor of delaying, dragging things out, thwarting the allies, then maybe inspections are "working".
...and that it is just about oil.
The French opposition to the ousting Saddam may well be 'just about oil'.
- The US would also be reinforcing perceptions of US hostility towards Arabs, thus increasing the effectiveness of Islamic extremist movements in the area, leading to increased threats of terrorism for the US (and western Europe as well).
Those perceptions are reinforced continually. Every day the Arab media shows starving and disease ridden children of Iraq with the clear implication that the US led sanctions are the root cause. Never mind that they've had 'humanitarian' oil sales for 5 years now, the money from which is apparently going to fund mobile biolabs and more and better missiles.
So, the status quo is the best of both worlds for Saddam and Bin Laden. Saddam gets money to continue to develop all kinds of hideous weapons and he gets to blame the US on the deprivations in his country. Bin Laden gets to whip up anti-American hatred over the US "murdering" millions of Iraqi children.
- I think I'm a lot safer with the status quo, even if that measn that Saddam Hussein is in possession of some bio/chem weapons. He's not going to give them to terrorists, because they hate him almost as much as they hate the US.
Your assurances don't calm me a bit. Osama Bin Laden has always hated Americans, yet he gladly took American weapons, training and money in Afghanistan and used them only in his campaign to oust the Russians. He could have turned those weapons on Americans at the time, but knew that wouldn't forward his cause. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in general are not so blinded by hate that they can't make a strategic alliance to further their ultimate goals. Saddam is well aware of this history.
Just recently, a Bin Laden tape encouraged the faithful to join with the leaders of Iraq in fighting off the crusaders. This is a clear signal to Al Qaeda members that it's acceptable to work with Saddam Hussein if it's to thwart "the crusaders" (Americans and allies).
If Saddam were to give out packets of weaponized Anthrax, smallpox or Nuclear material from which to make dirty bombs to Al Qaeda, it would be very unlikely that these assets would be used against him. Why would Al Qaeda dilute their base by turning on Arabs? Even Arabs that they hate?
- He can't effectively use them against us in the US via a rocket or anything like that, because he clearly lacks the technology to do so, and while he's power-mad, he's not stupid.
Saddam is power-mad and has apparently not budged an inch from his desire to control the region, it's oil and ultimately the world with oil as a weapon. It's true that his arsenal when deployed from Iraq could not bring about the destruction of the US, but it would be very effective in rolling over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Only the US and the US allies stand in his way.
That's exactly why he would give them to Al Qaeda. I said this elsewhere, but it bears repeating: It's not lost on Saddam that the $500,000 investment by Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks yielded $700,000,000,000 in economic damage to the US.
Everybody talks about US arrogance being the problem here and I have to say that I do feel there is a danger from US arrogance. It is arrogant to believe we can absorb many well-coordinated terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction and still remain a power capable of eliminating our enemies. This is the arrogance that I fear.
- And if we don't go to war, we could actually do something crazy like, I dunno, support legitimate democratic opposition to Hussein. If a real people-supported, non-extremist, non-fundamentalist government took control of Iraq, that would be safest for us.
Oh yeah, what a great idea. <sarcasm level='very thick'>Now, why didn't that stupid George W Bush think of that!?</sarcasm> You mean like this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this?
Unfortunately, there are significant problems in coordinating Iraqi opposition and Saddam brutally oppresses any opposition, both in Iraq and abroad.
