the other press Op-Ed Simon Jester OP Contributor Yesterday I learned that George Bush had given Saddam Hussein 48 hours to get out of Dodge, and had received a diplo- matic raspberry in reply. I expressed some regret that thirigs had come to this, saying that nonetheless I was not entirely opposed. At this, the person beside me said “How can you not?” Well, it’s like this: Please remember that the first Gulf War had as its aim the liber- ation of Kuwait. The war was more or less fully supported by the UN, including France (after some waffling). Some people feel the Gulf War should not have hap- pened. They're wrong. One country had invaded another. When this happens, the only thing which will send the invader | home is military force. Lest the reader doubt this, look up Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Palestine and/or Israel. As a condition of losing the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein’s country was placed under a set of very strict rules having to do with the building, buying, and use of cer- tain heavy weapons and the means for assembling nerve, chemical, and biologi- cal agents which it had already proven it liked to use. Iraq was placed under sanc- tions by the UN as a consequence of Saddam's complete and utter refusal to cooperate with weapons inspection teams. Saddam has been in violation of the conditions of his surrender for almost a decade. The power to lift the sanctions that peace protesters say have killed a mil- lion and a half Iraqis could have been lift- ed by one person, and one person only. Unfortunately that one person was http://otherpress.douglas.be.ca How | Can Not Oppose an Iraq War Saddam. Seeing that there was to be no coopera- tion, the UN decided to play it safe and ignore this horrid little man, rendering ineffective both the surrender conditions and the UN itself. Thus the US has the unpleasant task of enforcing surrender conditions imposed by the UN. Had the United Nations actu- ally forced Saddam’s compliance when he first barred weapons inspectors from the country, this crisis would not now be upon us. Some people point to the lack of “a smoking gun.” They ask why the US has not been able to come up with something more convincing than a few satellite pho- tos of odd-looking truck movements and intercepted phone calls to prove that the Iraqi president is actually developing banned weapons. But international intel- ligence-gathering is not done by Perry Mason; a clear chain of evidence might never be produced. But is such a chain of evidence neces- sary? Saddam Hussein himself has said that Iraq “had these weapons...for defence” but claims that they were destroyed. Apparently though, the Iraqi agencies which destroyed them kept such lousy records that they cannot account for the whereabouts of enormous quantities of VX nerve agent. Apparently that’s good enough for some. A question: if the under-funded, half- starved Canadian military can remember where they dropped a load of mustard gas shells following the First World War (off the coast of Vancouver Island), why can’t the comparatively modern Iraqi war machine keep track of their nerve, blood, and blister agents over less than a decade—especially since inquiring UN minds will want to know? When George W. Bush forced the crisis, many countries refused even to agree in principle that a threat of military force, once used, should be supported by mili- tary force. The recent conduct of France, Germany, and Russia is nothing less than a tragedy. Their intransigence has helped to leave the diplomatic process, and possi- bly the relevancy of the UN, in a sham- bles. By failing to force compliance sever- al years ago, and failing to reach consen- sus now, the UN has created an untenable situation. Even peace protesters agree that Saddam needs replacing. Are they truly so naive as to think that he is not concealing weapons he is banned from having? If he is, then he is in violation of the Gulf War surren- der conditions, and his sovereignty is for- feit. And if the international community will not enforce international treaties, then who will? Under George W. Bush, the US dropped its level of foreign interference to an absolute minimum. When the World Trade Centre killings took place, America was forced back onto the world stage. The Taliban were not about to surrender Osama Bin Laden to the US, or even to the international court, so the US invad- ed Afghanistan. The war was more or less supported by the international communi- March 26, 2003 ty for these reasons. The US was forced to play its own policeman, and in the face of dithering from the international commu- nity has gone on to police the world. Finally, why now? Why has this become an issue at this time. After all, say oppo- nents, we've ignored Saddam this long, can't this just go on? Europe ignored Hitler. America ignored Tojo. The UN _ ignored Slobodan Milosevic. Saddam Hussein, like Hitler, has been swatted once. To quote a slogan peace protesters occasionally chant: If not now, when? People point to Kim Jong Il, the friend- ly neighbourhood dictator of South-East Asia. Why, they say, doesn’t the US do something about him? After all, Saddam's only trying to build atom bombs. Mr. Kim has one, and we've been pussy-foot- ing about with him for years. But that’s rather the point, isn’t it? It’s too late to “oppose” this. The Second Gulf War is on its way. It’s too late for the US to stop. It was too late when the num- ber of US troops in the Gulf got larger than a few tens of thousands. But the peo- ple who could have stopped the Second Gulf War by acting from New York don’t have the will. And the one man who can stop it now, and has always had the power to stop it, is Saddam Hussein. I do not support war. Peace is better. But people make wars necessary. Feedback? Email Simon Jester at Kim Meier fissistant Photographer ' Third Degree Do you believe America has a “hidden agenda” held within their announced reasons for aggression against Iraq? page 7 ©