Iraq Endgame

Brushing aside the world's largest antiwar demonstrations ever, the United States, Britain and Spain have introduced a new United Nations Security Council resolution that would in their view authorize the use of force against Iraq. The Bush Administration has thus chosen not only to defy world public opinion but also to embark on an endgame of bullying and buying off other Security Council members to win their consent to war (see "Buying a Coalition," page 4). To those who can't be bought or bullied, the Administration brandishes the threat of blackmail: Consent to our war or we will render the UN irrelevant, it warns.

That the Administration must resort to such practices reveals just how unsuccessful it has been in convincing the world of the merits of its case. (Further evidence came on February 26, when 199 British MPs--the majority from Prime Minister Tony Blair's party--voted to reject Blair's war policy.) If the United States succeeds in "winning" a vote on its resolution through bribery and threats, it will weaken, perhaps irrevocably, UN credibility on matters of peace and security, and further undermine the role of international law. The UN's relevance rests on its adherence to the rule of law. In this case that means defying US pressure for an unjustified war. We therefore hold the view that Council members have no choice but to oppose the US-British-Spanish resolution and join the people of the world in demanding that all countries participate in a coordinated Iraq policy. France, Germany and Russia have offered an avenue more consistent with international security: a proposal that the Council adopt a "realistic and rigorous" timeline for Iraq to complete remaining disarmament tasks.

To review briefly what we have argued before: War is unnecessary because Iraq does not now pose a threat to our national security, to its neighbors or to international peace and security. Moreover, war is unwise because the human, economic, political, social and security costs far outweigh any conceivable benefits. These costs include the possibility that war would further inflame the Arab world, destabilize pro-US governments in the region, make Americans the target of Islamic extremists at home and abroad, and bring weapons of mass destruction closer to the grasp of international terrorists. Indeed, the danger that terrorists may get their hands on chemical, biological or nuclear materials comes not from Saddam's imagined collusion with Al Qaeda but from the chaos that would result from an invasion and from the possibility that Pakistan, which actually possesses nuclear weapons, might be destabilized as a result of war. The memory of September 11 is a reminder of the need to actively defend our country, but it is not a license for irrational actions that may bring about the very danger we are trying to prevent.

Subscriber Login

User Name

Password

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 68 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
• Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.