Why the UN should sanction another resolution after UNSC 1441

Optimists will say that inspections did uncover and destroy many of Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons in the 1990s and that a continuation of inspections and deterrence is preferable to a major war. Critics of the idea will worry that Hussein is just promising inspections to stall our march to war and that he will obstruct the work of inspectors once the threat of a U.S. invasion recedes.


In fact, it is too soon to know whether the Bush administration has achieved a success. It has at least managed to make the threat of war real enough to convince Hussein to soften his blustery stance. But no Iraqi disarmament has occurred, and none is guaranteed.

Moreover, Hussein outmaneuvered the administration this week, accepting a relatively lenient set of demands based on the existing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1284 before the United States could work with other countries to develop a new and tougher resolution linked to the threat of force. Because virtually all U.S. allies would prefer even a flawed inspection process to war, the administration's job of crafting an ultimatum that enjoys international support is now more difficult. Russia has already challenged the notion that a new resolution is necessary at this point.



The good news is that the administration still should be able to recover. Specifically, it should be able to lead the international community in crafting a Security Council resolution that toughens the 1999 U.N. Resolution 1284—which made some sanctions relief contingent on Iraqi cooperation with weapons inspectors, rather than complete disarmament. The U.S. needs to keep arguing that Iraqi disarmament, rather than inspections per se, is the core demand that must be met before the lifting of sanctions can be considered. It needs to get the rest of the world behind this view. And it needs a new and stronger resolution to formally remind Hussein of the consequences of noncompliance.

A new resolution must insist, of course, that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors, fully support their work and ensure their immediate access to any and all sites—including presidential palaces and compounds.

The United Nations must have exclusive prerogative to determine the composition of inspection teams and be able to immediately grant asylum to Iraqi weapons experts and their families should they provide information to the U.N. that could put their lives at risk.

The resolution also must demand that Iraq vigorously start the disarmament process. It must account for, display and allow U.N. destruction of certain stocks of chemical and biological weapons and munitions that we know it possesses.

It must do all this within a short, specific period.

Looking to the longer term, Iraq must agree to intrusive, long-term monitoring of its weapons capabilities. These demands are already found in existing resolutions, but they need to be spelled out.

Specifically, the international community needs the right to demand no-notice inspections whenever and wherever it wishes, even if sanctions against Iraq are lifted someday.

Restrictions will have to remain on Iraq's oil revenue, and industrial countries will have to establish rules for controlling Baghdad's importing of potentially dangerous technologies.

The U.S. also needs to hold separate talks with Iraq's neighbors. Because these countries would all prefer to avoid a U.S. invasion of Iraq, they need to agree to stop their illicit trade with that nation—by which oil comes out and many goods, including weapons and dual-use technology, enter Iraq. This would require detailed negotiations with Jordan, Turkey, Syria and perhaps even Iran, including consideration of some combination of economic incentives and strong pressure that would depend in its details on the country in question.

These demands are tough, but they are also specific and focused on Iraq's weapons rather than its internal political practices. They are far from unreasonable, as U.S. allies should recognize. And yet they also create an ultimatum tough enough that allows us to take yes for an answer from the Iraqi regime. At the moment, Iraq's yes is not quite good enough.

[NightSinner]

--------------
As professor of political science, I have been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and have won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.



and you come here to post?

I was researching over the internet using a search to see where people may be mis-informed over the situation and my son plays planetarion and he mention you people

[Ap0k]

prolly beats the hell outta trying to explain stuff to Gee Dubya

[NightSinner]

researching what? troll material?

.........

I am unaware of this word "troll" probably some arpanet slang anyway i shall move onto another messaging board thankyou for your opinions but i can see my valuable time here is wasted

............

[NightSinner]

well u simply come here post a long thread with really no questions or reasons to your motivations...we are just examining the proverbial bug

[Zapman]

Troll.

Next please.

[NightSinner]

Originally posted by CondoleezzaRice
I am unaware of this word "troll" probably some arpanet slang anyway i shall move onto another messaging board thankyou for your opinions but i can see my valuable time here is wasted

oh and might i suggest if you are really moving on to visit Jolt


you will be surpirsed what idiots you will have to deal with there...please be my guest and try to "educate" them although i doubt that possible :/

[Zapman]

Find the sig...

[Cochese]

I believe the real Condoleezza Rice wouldn't have made so many grammatical errors in 'her' posts.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

What I can't understand is all the invasions the US keeps planning.
Theres only enough oil left in the entire world for about 60 years use.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally posted by Cmdr_Cyrax
What I can't understand is all the invasions the US keeps planning.
Theres only enough oil left in the entire world for about 60 years use.

you've looked everywhere then have you?

[Fifth_teletubbie]

Proclaiming your awards in your signature, ostensibly to provide some credibility, is no substitute for actually providing arguments that hold up to scrutiny.

Policy aside, what it boils down to is the right of one country (US) to (attempt to) dictate to the international community how to deal with another country that may or may not have violated previous sanctions; for all their blustering claims to the contrary neither the US nor Britain has actually shown any evidence.

Your whole statement bypasses that question and moves straight on to implementation issues.

[Kumnaa]

Originally posted by CondoleezzaRice
I was researching over the internet using a search to see where people may be mis-informed over the situation and my son plays planetarion and he mention you people

WHO IS YOUR SON!?!

[Marilyn Manson]

If you have time to post stuff of that length on internet forums like this one, during international crises like the one we're in, then you're not doing your job properly, Condy.

[Deffeh]

Tbh, ive seen polar bears that go undercover better than DF3 members

lolzors theyll never know its us!!!!

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
If you have time to post stuff of that length on internet forums like this one, during international crises like the one we're in, then you're not doing your job properly, Condy.

plagiarism doesn't take very long.

Though it makes jokes about how bad her writing style and grammar all the more funny.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
snipped sanctions snipped

Do you mean sanctions or treaties here? I think there is a difference, even if you do not.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by CondoleezzaRice
I was researching over the internet using a search to see where people may be mis-informed over the situation and my son plays planetarion and he mention you people

I think you are forgetting one tiny detail, the U.S. couldn't care less wether or not saddam has weapons.
They just want his oil, if the weapons are no longer available as an excuse they'll just say that his ears are too pointy if you get my drift.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by Cmdr_Cyrax
What I can't understand is all the invasions the US keeps planning.
Theres only enough oil left in the entire world for about 60 years use.

Let's see, all cars, airplanes, generators need oil for their fuel.
If we have 60 years of oil left, either we start making structural plans within the next 20 years of replacing all these things or we're gonna find ourselves without any fuel at all.

So, if you're the one who controls allll the oil in the world, and everybody wants it, and nobody has it.. guess what makes you that?

In control *ding ding ding*.

The fact that the level of English used in the original post, and the posters replies is so radically different clearly dictates that the author and the poster are not the same.

The author may well be a Dr./Professor/janitor at a University, but the level of English coming from the replies is more than likely from a dodgy foreigner.

And the fact that they gave up so quickly also indicates that they are dodgy.