When was "Peace" lost? UNs Weapons Inspectors say Peace diplomacy lost it!

When was a peaceful outcome in the world's confrontation against Iraq's Saddam Hussein lost?

Salem Pax, a blogger in Baghdad, suggested it was lost when the international community witnessed Kurdish democracy flower. and failed to emulate it in the Shi'ite South.

Given Time magazines recent cover story, it was lost to Powell in mid-January, on MLK day. (I had thought mid-February, myself.)

Now an an amazing story in Germany's "Die Zeit,"
http://www.zeit.de/2003/14/Waffeninspektoren
quoting U.N. arms inspectors, says that German (and French, Russian, and Chinese) refusal to back military force in the U.N. defanged and doomed their effort and made war inevitable.

Mind you, this comes from U.N. arms inspectors: they that say that the "Peace" diplomacy Blix prostituted himself for lost the peace.

Translated into English here:
http://pages.prodigy.net/thomasn528/blog/2003_03_30_newsarcv.html#91854821

"Could this war have been prevented? Yes, say some [inspectors]. But with a surprising argument: Germany, France and Russia made war unavoidable with their purported peace politics. Gerhard Schroeder's categorical 'no' to military deployment was simply "crazy." "We might have been able to fulfill our mandate," one hears in the hotel lobby.

"When the UNMOVIC (United Nations Ongoing Monitoring and Verification) inspectors opened their headquarters on November 27 last year ... they believed Resolution 1441 was a potent tool to uncover Saddam Hussein's terror arsenal: access to all installations. Unannounced inspections, even of presidential palaces. Interviews with scientists. Absolute freedom of movement, helicopters with high-tech sensors.

"Blix delivered a more conciliatory situation assessment on February 14. This was the basis for Germany, France and Russia to speak of 'functioning inspections' and to increasingly distance themselves from America and Great Britain. The governments in Berlin, Paris, and Moscow felt confirmed in the conviction that their peace strategy would lead to success.

'The inspectors in Baghdad saw things completely differently: their position was suddenly weakened. Documents were held back again. Scientists appeared -- if at all -- only with their own tape recorders. After the conversations they had to deliver the cassettes to the NMD. The hope for greater assertiveness that had grown following Powell's speech diminished again. 'After February 14 we didn't get much any more.'

"In hindsight a clear pattern emerged, from the viewpoint of the UN inspectors: 'Saddam Hussein followed every step in the Security Council closely. As soon as divisions appeared, cooperation diminished.' The officials in Baghdad only became more cooperative when military pressure increased. ***Rhetoric never impressed Saddam Hussein, the inspectors say, the deeper the quarrels split the international community, the surer he felt more himself.***"
------

In short, rack up aother "win" for the old international peacekeeping system so many believe we ought to bow before and pray for!

Friends have asked me "what happened to [the Dove] Powell?"
I think it's a simple as him having heard from the ground, i.e., theinspectors themselves, as the above Die Zeit story explains.

--Orson

 

Sorry...editing function timed out before I could straighten out grammar and insert a middle ellipses into the long quote.

--Orson

 

Hi Orson,

I do agree that when the UN Security Council fragmented that it did become "defanged." I'm sure it enboldened Saddam. It's too bad that there couldn't have been a peaceful solution. However, there is still no guarantee that force wouldn't have been necessary. Dictators don't like to be dictated to. Funny, though, if he would've fully complied, he could've been restored by now. Iraq could be fully prospering without any embargos, and he could still be in charge. Instead he embarked on a twelve year hype that is now comming back to haunt him.

Now, as for the UN, I think that they can be effective in some areas like poverty, medicine, education, etc... I don't think that they can be very effective as an international policing agency. Why? Mainly because it's a prooven fact that nation's will always put their own national interests first. This present failure is a perfect example of this. Not too many countries want to give up their soverignty. In the UN you have people who like, are neutral to, or dislike any given nation at any given time. Even here in America, which is the "United States", States don't agree in many issues. This is not to say we can't get along, but if a given foriegn State is at it's core fundamentally and diametrically opposed to another nation then there will be little or no agreement possible. Do you agree with this? If not, what do you think?


Take care!


Kevin