Goldberg Questions Inspections

Author: Bryan Goldberg

Fahim Ahmed's Middle Ground column is usually one of the many highpoints of The Middlebury Campus. Typically, Ahmed's analysis is dead-on, and his ability to explain contemporary issues is a definite strong suit. That said his most recent installment suffered a few inaccuracies, which strongly parallel the great misunderstandings that underscored this weekend's worldwide protests.
The greatest flaw is Ahmed's interpretation of 'Iraq's burden.' He claims: "Powell's case [for war] was flawed because he failed to recognize that the burden of proof to demonstrate that Iraq is harboring weapons of mass destruction is on the United States, rather than on Iraq to prove the contrary." Ahmed's point can be immediately dispelled given that Hans Blix, the U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector, has made it absolutely clear that the "burden of proof" is on Iraq. In a testimony to the Security Council in December of last year, Blix said, "The burden of proof is on them [Iraq]... the burden of proof is not on us to run around in every house in Iraq to search for it. We do go around and we check into industries, chemical industries, for instance, or pharmaceutical industries, into military installations ... but you cannot check in every nook and corner of a large country." Indeed, Iraq is two-thirds the physical size of Texas, and its population is even greater. It would take several decades for a few dozen inspectors to sift through a nation that large. Factor into the equation Saddam's efforts to sabotage the inspections, as outlined by Colin Powell on February 5th, and the task goes from daunting to impossible. In fact, the current inspection process actually benefits Saddam Hussein, insofar as world opinion hinges upon the discovery of a "smoking gun," a discovery that will never take place so long as inspections are limited to "industries and military instillations" - sites that Hussein has long since evacuated.
Later in his article, Ahmed claims that "The Bush administration's posturing on Iraq risks undermining the United Nations." If this were at all true, it would certainly be a point of concern. Even the staunchest pro-war advocates recognize the importance of maintaining a credible international body. Interestingly, it is President Bush who may be one of the few who is actually upholding the UN's integrity. On Nov. 8 of last year, the United Nations unanimously agreed on Resolution 1441, an agreement that serves as the guidelines for what Hussein must do in order to avoid forced disarmament.
So far, Iraq and its leader have failed miserably to comply with the resolution. Most notably, they intentionally ignored the single most important provision: "in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its [weapons] programmes..." Immediately after Hussein released his laughably inaccurate weapons report, the entire world agreed that he had failed to fulfill this obligation, and further inspections have uncovered several examples of omissions in his report. Thus, by not taking swift and severe action against Iraq, the United Nations is failing to uphold Resolution 1441.
The United States, along with its pro-war allies (England, Spain, Italy, Australia, and many others), refuses to let Saddam Hussein get away with his disregard for Resolution 1441 and the international body that voted for it; it is France and Germany who have, in an act of cowardice, stepped down from their original position of resolution enforcement.

Opinions Contributor Bryan Goldberg is a sophomore economics major from Los Altos, California