IF, AND WHEN: WAR'S TIMING
Artículo de PATRICK E. TYLER en "The New York Times" del 16-2-03
With the United States poised to launch a military strike against Iraq within a matter of weeks, the question of whether war should replace United Nations inspections as the primary instrument to disarm Saddam Hussein became one of timing yesterday.
When the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, suggested yesterday that the Security Council give the inspectors a month more before convening again on March 14, he was not proposing a 30-day deadline for Iraq. Rather, there was an implication that however remote the possibility, there could still be a compromise if Iraq was more forthcoming by then.
Neither President Bush nor Secretary of State Colin L. Powell responded to the French time line yesterday, which also seemed significant since most military experts believe that it could easily take a month more to complete the transport of the required American and British troops to the front lines in Kuwait and Turkey. They need time to find their equipment, fire their weapons and get a taste of the Middle Eastern desert before Mr. Bush can push the button.
Some American military officials have focused on the moonless nights of early March as the time to begin a bombing campaign, but other military leaders have suggested that the beginning of combat operations could slide to the middle or latter part of the month.
A later start runs the greater risk that American troops could still be fighting when the heat of summer strikes Iraq like a hammer on an anvil as early as April.
In the end, an attempt to get the French, as well as other Security Council permanent members like Russia and China, "on board" is worth taking a little extra time, said Michael H. Armacost, who has served in senior White House and State Department positions in Republican and Democratic administrations.
"But," he added, "Saddam already has had a few months, and he hasn't produced an evidence of flexibility, and so I didn't hear anything today that suggests that there will be a change of heart."
Without a clear change of heart by Mr. Hussein, the differences apparent yesterday between America and its European allies seem likely to persist. The approval of any second Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force would require the French to come around to the view that the inspections have been given enough time and have failed. As Mr. de Villepin termed it yesterday, timing has become the "core of the debate."
For Mr. de Villepin, March 14 is only the next marker on the road to extended inspections by an ever larger inspection force working under Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, perhaps for months more.
But the concept of open-ended inspections is unacceptable to Mr. Bush and could well lead the United States soon to take the step that the president and his advisers — indeed most Americans — would certainly like to avoid: an open break with the Security Council and the formation of a "coalition of the willing" that would divide not only the United Nations, but also Europe and Asia.
For that reason, the passions underlying yesterday's debate were intense.
Mr. Powell said that "in the very near future, we will have to consider whether or not we've reached that point where this Council, as distasteful as it may be, as reluctant as we may be," will have to consider the "serious consequences" that hang over Iraq for refusing to comply with disarmament resolutions.
Security Council Resolution 1441, which set in motion the latest round of inspections, refers to "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to cooperate. The words are widely considered to refer to the use of force.
Mr. de Villepin asserted: "The inspections are producing results. Of course, each of us wants more." But in the end, he added, the risks and uncertainties of war in Iraq exceed the risks of continued inspections under the credible threat of force.
"No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of the inspections," he told the Council members. "No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world."
Mr. Powell appeared unmoved. He promised more intelligence to show the connection between Al Qaeda's terrorist network and Iraq. That connection underscores the urgency to act that Bush administration officials evoke in almost every statement — though clearly the multibillion dollar deployment of American forces in the Persian Gulf weighs heavily on White House calculations.
Mr. Powell, and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain, sought to keep the focus on how little Baghdad had responded to Resolution 1441. Both harked back to the concluding words of Mr. Blix's report yesterday that "three months after the adoption of Resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short," if and only if Iraq were to undertake "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation."
Although he stated that promising discussions were under way in Baghdad to hasten inspection and disarmament , he made no attempt to raise expectations among the members that Baghdad had now begun to show the "unconditional cooperation" demanded of it.
In a sense, another date with Mr. Blix could be beneficial for the Security Council because it is becoming clear that the more often Mr. Blix returns to New York with a report, the more the Council and public opinion are able to judge the results, even if they seem inconclusive for now.
So, after another month of inspections, will the 15 Council members know whether they are likely ever to answer the questions: Where is the anthrax? Where are the VX nerve agents? Where are the Scuds?
In arguing for more time, the French foreign minister reiterated: "France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors' reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections."
Yesterday, Mr. Blix, along with France, was not prepared to pronounce the new inspections a failure. When, if ever, he is prepared to do that may determine whether America fights with a small "coalition of the willing" or with the full backing of the international community.