At the Crossroads on Iraq
Three months after the return of UN arms inspectors to Iraq, chief
inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei have, not surprisingly,
reported mixed results. While there is broad international agreement
on the need for Iraqi compliance with UN Resolution 1441, the UN
Security Council is once again divided about the next steps.
After providing needed leadership for renewed and tougher inspections
last fall, the Bush administration now asserts that further inspections
are futile and threatens to go to war even without broad international
support. Is there a need to take further action? Yes. Does this
mean that armed invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s government
is the advisable and necessary action at this juncture? No.
If ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction is the real goal
and war is truly the last resort, then the United States and the
Security Council can and must reinforce the powers of the UN inspectors
and increase diplomatic and military pressure on Baghdad. The current
inspections regime need not last indefinitely, as some fear it might.
Blix told Time magazine, “If [the Iraqis] cooperate
fully and spontaneously, then the time should be short. If it’s
a moderate amount of cooperation…it’s a question of months.”
Baghdad has cooperated more than it did in the 1990s but has yet
to provide a complete explanation of past activities and evidence
that it has ceased its pursuit of prohibited weapons. Perhaps of
greatest concern are the suspected and unaccounted for nerve and
mustard agents; chemical and biological munitions; and the presence
of ballistic missiles with ranges beyond UN-imposed limits.
Even unobstructed weapons inspections will not guarantee that every
prohibited Iraqi weapon has been eliminated. But tough inspections
can provide the necessary confidence that Iraq cannot reconstitute
militarily significant chemical, biological, and nuclear capabilities.
Further inspections might also produce more definitive findings
to help the Security Council members bridge their differences on
the next steps.
Currently, there is no imminent threat that justifies a full-scale
invasion of Iraq and the many risks and casualties such a course
entails. The return of the inspectors and the presence of U.S. troops
are, for now, effectively containing the potential threat posed
by Iraq. The ability of the United States to maintain the diplomatic
and military pressure needed to sustain this process over the next
several months exceeds its ability to absorb the political, monetary,
and human costs of a precipitous military invasion.
Inspectors have now conducted nearly 600 inspections of more than
425 sites but are just now beginning to use all the tools, such
as U2 overflights, afforded to them under Resolution 1441. More
can and must be done to make inspections more effective and to compel
greater Iraqi cooperation. To start, U.S. intelligence agencies
have not yet supplied the inspectors with their most useful data
on suspected weapons-related activities and should do so immediately.
The United States and other UN members should take steps to further
limit Iraqi access to dual-use items.
For their part, Blix and ElBaradei must test Iraq’s commitment
to allow its weapons scientists and engineers to be interviewed
without interference. They should also substantially beef up their
contingent of just over 100 inspectors. This would enable them to
maintain an ongoing presence at the most worrisome sites. The inspectors
should also exercise their authority to prohibit the movement of
vehicles and aircraft around suspected sites in order to prevent
the movement of banned weapons materials.
It is also crucial that Blix and ElBaradei establish a timetable
to compel greater Iraqi cooperation. Such milestones would clarify
for council members whether Iraq is meeting its obligations and
help restore much needed unanimity on how to respond if Iraq complies
and if it does not. Blix has wisely established a March 1 deadline
to begin destruction of Baghdad’s prohibited al Samoud 2 missiles.
It is certainly past time for Iraq to account for and verifiably
destroy the rest of its proscribed weapons. But if President George
W. Bush abandons tougher inspections and invades Iraq without support
from the Security Council and greater evidence of an imminent threat,
he may well undermine the very institutions and mechanisms needed
to preserve international law and order. An undertaking so complex,
serious, and deadly as invasion must have broader international
approval and legitimacy.
Unless Blix and ElBaradei report that their efforts have become
futile because of blatant Iraqi noncooperation, it remains in the
United States’ vital interests to vigorously pursue the inspections
process. The prudent course for the Security Council is to further
strengthen the inspections regime, maintain pressure on Iraq, and
restore consensus on how best to achieve its disarmament.
|
