Plum Crazy

I could understand an argument that says that Iraq does not pose a direct threat. But an argument that says they aren't in material breach of the resolution and that inspections are working? That I can't understand. They have not provided "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to the weapons inspectors. Furthermore, the resolution states that (emphasis mine):

...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council or assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

They are clearly in material breach. That there is any serious question about this astounds me. It also calls into question the effectiveness of the United Nations. The resolution states its purpose as being:

...to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

Final opportunity? Not if they have to pass a new resolution about the old resolution. But the ineffectiveness doesn't stop there.

...the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

I suppose that's highly effective if by "serious consequences" they meant "pass additional resolutions." Personally, though, I see nothing all that serious about that.

I think the time has come to consider what the role of the U.N. is meant to be. If it is truly meant to be a meaningful body, it needs to be empowered to be so and its member nations need to act as if it is. The truth is that its member nations do not act as if it is, and I simply don't see that changing in the near future.

I work in a global firm. I see things like this happen in microcosm regularly. We call it "globalization paralysis." We sometimes get so caught up in doing things globally that we don't do anything at all. You can never get the consensus. There are, simply put, still too many significant differences between the various regions. Sometimes it just does not make sense to do things globally.

Another interesting facet is that it seems that those of us who work in the U.S. region are the ones most interested in doing things globally. The Europeans sometimes talk the global talk, but they will then go off and do their own thing contrary to the idea of globalization. To their credit, the Latin Americans, Asians, and Australians don't even see why we are trying to do things globally, so at least they are honest up front.

We Americans, however, don't wind up moving forward at all, because we're still so hung up on having to do things globally and push for others to do them globally as well. To my way of thinking, if we need to do something in the U.S., we should go ahead and do it instead of being stuck for years going around in a consensus spiral. Especially when the rest of the world is moving forward with their own solutions. Either that or we should be empowered to require the other regions to stop and act globally. Since that won't realistically happen, the former is a better solution.

It is much the same with the U.N., but on a far broader scale. No one is empowered to require nations to act globally. Therefore the nations will simply move ahead and do what they perceive as in their best interest. We should be doing that now. If we perceive that acting against Iraq is in our best interest, we should do so. At the very least, we should start debating whether or not it really is in our best interests, instead of continually trying to seek some sort of global consensus we will not get. The French, Germans, and Russians have their own best interests at heart here. I hope no one is truly naive enough to believe that their opposition stems from some type of global concern. It does not, despite their talk. Let us take a lesson from them.