OPINION & EDITORIAL
A diplomatic two-step
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Rob Deters:
- SUVs and Earth Day do not mix (April 24, 2003)
- Lawlessness reigns in halls of Congress (April 6, 2005)
- Lessons gathered while in Madison (May 5, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Neo-cons, neo-problems (March 13, 2003)
- Past errors haunt administration (March 2, 2005)
- Escalating crisis imperils region (October 10, 2006)
- U.S. must set the standard in the treatment of prisoners of war (November 20, 2003)
- Fresh chance for Bush (December 8, 2006)
by Rob Deters
Monday, January 27, 2003
Trouble is brewing, and the international community is in turmoil. President Bush would like to wage war in the Middle East while waging peace on the Korean Peninsula. If this confuses you, don’t worry. It’s hard to comprehend. To turn a phrase, Bush has been caught with his international ideological pants down.
The Bush Administration does not have a good reason as to why we want to oust Saddam and deal with Kim. This is because there really is not one. To declare Saddam enemy number one and then have North Korea go about committing far more obvious and concerted efforts to embarrass American power is rather amusing. Bush cannot explain very well why Iraq poses a threat that requires 200,000 U.S. troops to quell and the million-man army of North Korea does not. Right now, there is no justification for war in Iraq that North Korea doesn’t already pose - and to a far greater degree.
Premier Kim Il-Jong is a crafty leader who understands that American power can extend only so far. Very few American presidents have deftly dealt with two international crises at the same time. To press now for concessions is a bold move. Kim understands that with a new president in South Korea who desires a peace process and wary China and Russia as neighbors, he can afford to be bellicose. It’s a smart strategy, and one that will probably work.
Let’s address Bush’s reasons for war in Iraq. The president claims that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. So far, with the exception of some chemical weapons warheads found last week, the weapons inspectors have found nothing. Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, wants more time. Blix has stated that weapons inspections are part of the containment of Iraq. This is absolutely true, and their renewed presence is a good sign that Saddam can be reined in.
Bush also claims that Saddam has used chemical weapons in the past and it is an indication he will use them in the future. Hussein did use gas in both the Iran-Iraq War and against his own people at Halabja. Bush especially hammers home the last incident when Hussein gassed Kurds who he felt threatened his regime. The fact of the matter is the U.S. approved of all of Hussein’s chemical weapons attacks during the Iran-Iraq War; even going so far as to provide satellite imagery assistance. Halabja was an entirely Hussein affair, but it differs mightily from gassing invading troops. Hussein also did not appear to use chemical weapons in the Persian Gulf War. So will he use them this time around? The indicators are not supported by historical fact.
On the other hand, North Korea has noisily rejected UN weapons inspectors and removed cameras monitoring their weapons grade plutonium. It has been proven that they are assisting the Pakistanis in their nuclear weapons program. They have left the group of nations involved with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Frankly, North Korea has done everything Iraq has done to reject the international community, and done it with a bullhorn. Why are they being treated differently?
The answer is simple. Iraq is simple. The people of America have seen Saddam demonized by three administrations in a row. For simple geographic proximity Iraq is in the Middle East, and we all know that’s where the terrorists come from. Bush treats Saddam like he’s an old Western villain. It helps Bush that Saddam has a mustache because it fits the mold of “bad guy” very nicely. Remember, this administration honestly talks of good and evil in this world, as if they are color blind to the vast shades of grey that truly represent the international community. Lastly, there is oil.
The Bush Administration has a choice. It can acknowledge that it simply has no good reason for war in Iraq, and that if they do, a logical response is like force in North Korea. Or they can continue talking out of both sides of their mouth and risk losing the support of the international community. The fact is that removing Saddam Hussein may make the Middle East safer in the short run. However, it could incite to conflagration a generation in the Middle East who are poorly educated and dangerously low on options. President Bush claims to want to bring a democratic revolution to the Middle East. Bringing the gift of freedom while bearing arms is a tough sell.
Already, Bush is losing support at home (he has the lowest approval ratings since 9/11). His rallying of the American people is ringing hollow. This weekend saw the largest anti-war demonstrations so far. It still hasn’t stopped the build-up in the Middle East. Let’s hope the steam runs out of the engines of war before too long.
