THE U.N. ENDGAME
Editorial de "The Washington Post" del 22-1-03
El formateado
es mío (L. B.-B.)
Con un breve comentario.
Luis
Bouza-Brey
The United Nations Security Council may have reached an impasse on Iraq.
Saddam Hussein's refusal to accept the "last chance" for voluntary
disarmament offered by the council's Resolution 1441 has split the council into
two opposing camps. One, led by the United States, takes seriously the
council's threat of "serious consequences" in the event of Iraqi
noncompliance -- meaning, very likely, a military campaign to remove Saddam
Hussein's vile regime. The other, including France and Germany, in the face of
war would abandon 1441 and fall back on a strategy of "containing"
the Iraqi threat through continued inspections. Unless this divide can be
overcome, the Bush administration will have to choose in the coming weeks
between giving up on Iraqi disarmament and leading a military campaign without
further approval from the United Nations. President Bush signaled yesterday
that if pressed he will choose to act with a "coalition of the
willing" rather than be blocked by the council's failure of nerve. That
was the right message to send.
The report to the Security Council due Monday by the chief weapons
inspector, Hans Blix, could well touch off an
acrimonious debate about whether Iraq has or has not complied with the
council's last order for disarmament -- particularly as Mr. Blix,
who sees his mission as heading off a war at any cost, is likely to duck the
central issue. That question is relatively simple: Has Iraq agreed to
immediately and voluntarily disclose and dismantle its weapons of mass
destruction, and to allow inspectors to verify those actions? The answer is
equally plain: It has not. In fact, it has denied that it has any weapons to
dismantle, submitted a declaration to the council that even Mr. Blix had to concede was manifestly false, and done its best
to prevent the inspectors from uncovering its lies, in part by bottling up its
scientists. Meanwhile, evidence is leaking out anyway: Undeclared chemical
warheads have been found, illegal imports of missile parts discovered,
explosives that could be used in nuclear warheads gone missing. The only way to avoid the conclusion that Iraq is again refusing to
disarm, and that action must thus be taken, is to ignore all these facts or
recast the U.N. mission.
France and Germany have chosen the latter course, with the tacit
cooperation of Mr. Blix. War against Iraq, they
argue, would create unacceptable risks: It could increase terrorism, widen the
gulf between the West and the Islamic world and destabilize the Middle East.
Why take those risks, they argue, when just stationing inspectors in Iraq would
likely ensure that Saddam Hussein did not use his arsenal? "Already we
know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being
largely blocked, even frozen," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin argued Monday. It's true that any war will bring
risks and painful costs. But Mr. de Villepin's
strategy has been tried before. The results were these: Iraq never fully
disclosed its weapons, and inspectors were never able to find many of them.
France soon turned from supporting the inspectors to demanding that their
mission be wrapped up. Eventually Saddam Hussein succeeded in driving the
inspectors out, while keeping biological and chemical warheads as well as a
nuclear weapons program.
"This looks like a rerun of a bad movie," President Bush said
yesterday. He's right; and the United States cannot afford to allow the French
script to be replayed. Instead, Mr. Bush should offer a detailed public
explanation of what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction, and challenge the United Nations, one last time, to preserve its
relevance by acting to implement Resolution 1441. In the meantime, the
administration should continue to prepare the military coalition that even now
is taking shape in the Persian Gulf. It would be best if that coalition could
act with full Security Council support; but it can, if necessary, succeed
without it.
breve comentario.
Luis Bouza-Brey
Se está produciendo un desajuste que lleva
a que comiencen a cuajar posiciones y fracturas entre EEUU y sus aliados. Se
están olvidando los términos de la resolución de las Naciones Unidas y
los datos existentes que demuestran la falsedad del régimen de Saddam en sus
declaraciones. ¿Es que va a resultar ahora que en estos últimos años las armas
químicas y biológicas en posesión de Irak se esfumaron? ¿Se habrán esfumado en
Siria?
El gobierno de EEUU debería comenzar ya
---como ha comenzado a hacer Rumsfeld--- a emitir un flujo de
valoraciones e informaciones sobre los incumplimientos de Irak y su ocultación
de armas. Esto serviría para ir conformando la opinión pública, ajustándola
mejor a la realidad. Hasta ahora ha habido un silencio prudencial, a la espera
del informa de los inspectores, que está dañando la presión y provocando
divisiones.
Después, una vez conocido el informe de
los inspectores, y en función de cómo se evalúe la situación por parte de los
dirigentes, será el momento de definir un curso de acción, que puede variar
entre dar un plazo corto, a la espera de la maduración de la opinión pública y
de los movimientos en el mundo árabe, o cortar por lo sano y actuar contra
Irak, con apoyo pleno del Consejo de Seguridad, o con apoyo de una alianza
internacional más o menos amplia.
Pero, entre tanto, la presión sobre Irak
debería ir aumentando. Esto, más que un juego de ajedrez, es una partida de
póker, con varios jugadores y en la que Irak va de farol permanente.