Long Pauses: Bush at the U.N.

Bush at the U.N.

Friday, September 13, 2002

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war, the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man.

It took all of thirty seconds for Dubya to invoke the memory of Hitler.

And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

What an interesting maneuver. After being pressed for several weeks to provide evidence that links Iraq to Al-Quaeda, and after failing repeatedly to do so, the President has instead linked them rhetorically, which, to be honest, is all that he really needs to do in order to sway public opinion back to his favor. Suddenly Hussein has been transformed into a new Osama, a figurehead and weapons broker. Apparently we no longer fear Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction, but only his ability to supply terrorists with them. I was curious to see how Bush would make Iraq a terrorism issue (I mean, besides giving his speech on September 12).

Last year the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights and that the regime's repression is all-pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents . . .

Even the most Dovish of us would never attempt to deny the human rights abuses of Hussein's Iraq. What bothers me is the inconsistency of Bush's policy and his use of "moral" rhetoric for political purposes. I applaud America's continuing efforts to encourage the establishment of free and open democracies, but I just can't understand (and, honestly, I really want to) why we are willing to wage war with one cruel nation while the leaders of another are invited to visit the ranch in Crawford.

. . . and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

This is the phrase I was waiting for. That term, "totalitarian," came into vogue with American foreign policy makers in the late-1940s, when early Cold Warriors were looking to capitalize on the excitement and idealism that lingered from our victory in WWII. Anthony Arblaster has written: "in the perspective of history, the term [‘totalitarianism’] will be seen as belonging more to political propaganda than to political analysis. It is, though, impossible to deny its centrality to the revived liberalism of the Cold War period. . . . The concept itself did much to ease the transition from the actual war against fascism to the Cold War against communism. Were not the two enemies essentially one and the same?" Here, Bush's invocation of Hitler begins to work its magic. Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter's credibility has begun to come under some fire lately, but I agree completely with one of his main points: by demonizing Hussein, we are severely limiting our policy options. As Ritter frequently asks, why can our diplomats sit down to talks with delegates from North Korea and Iran (those other arms of the "Axis of Evil") but not Iraq?

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspector set foot in Iraq — four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and to build and to test, behind the cloak of secrecy.

Do we have intelligence operations in place? Does Israel? If not, why not? If so, then why all of this vague conjecture?

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food and the stick of coalition military strikes.

And, as far as I can tell, both policies have been effective.

All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

As an amateur policy critic (and a partisan one at that) I have to admire this move. It's been obvious for weeks now that Bush has been rattling his saber under the assumption that others would rally behind him, or, at least after enough political pressure had been applied. The impact is already being felt. A common refrain in overseas news coverage has been, "With military action in Iraq now appearing to be inevitable . . ." By putting the pressure on the UN, Bush has obviously raised the stakes. I have no doubt, unfortunately, that it will work.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government and respect for women and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Man, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Again, I applaud his spoken motivations, but I just don't see this administration or the American voters being willing to put forth the long term efforts necessary for such a radical change. Let me be clear here: I have complete faith in the abilities of our armed services, and I have no doubt that we could quickly destabilize Iraq and oust its leadership (though doing so will come at the cost of thousands of lives, some ours, most theirs). But what happens next? That's the answer that I most wanted to hear yesterday and the one that I knew he would carefully sidestep.

Bush at the U.N.

Friday, September 13, 2002

Top

0 Comments: