 News Business Editorial Opinion Letters Arts Reviews Community Fun Travel Galleries Calendar Outdoors Dining Science Sports Español Front Page Archive |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
At what price irresolution?
by W. E. Gutman
Since the beginning of time, the peoples of Earth have struggled to preserve that perfect balance between instinctive mutual loathing and the practicalities of mutual forbearance. Patience, sound judgment and tolerance have helped stable societies maintain friendly borders between them. Cultural divergence, fanaticism and hatred have spawned hostility and wars.
The process by which nations cultivate (or humor) one another is called "politics" The craft has become both an instrument and the objective of human commerce. In its most refined distillation, this alchemy has led to the development of a skill --- "diplomacy" --- a method of discourse relying mostly on decorum, restraint and euphemisms of staggering ambiguity.
The weakness of diplomacy is that it works best among those who depend on it least --- loyal friends and allies --- or between nations willing to work out their differences, however sharp and divisive, but whose outlook and consonant vision of the future pose no threat to the established world order.
At its best, diplomacy has helped end wars, dissolve tyrannical regimes, restore justice. It has yielded lasting covenants. It has even helped forge ties of amity and cooperation between former foes. But it has failed against the intransigence of warmongers and the ill will of delusional despots.
Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. Khaddafi. Kim Il Sung. Arafat. Osama Bin Laden. Saddam Hussein.
The great debate --- to unseat Saddam from power by force --- is cleaving America's legislative bodies. But the differences may be more about form than substance. No one disagrees that the world would be a far better place once rid of Saddam. Nor is the vacillation among some members of Congress reflective of America's mood. Polls conducted since September 11 reveal a growing desire among Americans to see the United States "finish the job." This longing has since been bolstered by Israeli intelligence reports linking Saddam with al Qaida and other terror groups intent on destabilizing the west.
Interviewed recently on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Iraq "is feverishly working to develop weapons of mass destruction. Make no mistake," Netanyahu warned, "Saddam is not interested in deterrence. He means to deploy these doomsday weapons, first on Israel, then on the US It is imperative that he be neutralized and his arsenal destroyed."
Richard Butler, former United Nations chief weapons inspector, echoed Netanyahu's alarm. "Everyone is being lied to [by Saddam and his henchmen]. It is of utmost urgency that Iraq be brought into conformity with international law --- and that involves, at the very least, both arms control and disarmament." The very least unmistakably suggests more drastic measures.
A former Iraqi nuclear scientist now working in the West said his country is "well into production of chemical weapons and has enough uranium to generate several nuclear devices by 2005."
Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies asserts that "Iraq's military capabilities and its inventory of chemical and biological weapons constitute a threat that cannot be dismissed. To be careless about this potential would be disastrous."
Inspection of Iraq's weapons storehouses and analysis of its strategic objectives have failed. So has diplomacy in all its hues and nuances. Saddam, a consummate politician, has recently --- and startlingly --- offered to initiate talks that would "establish a basis for future inspections." The offer, which Iraq calls "a political and diplomatic" proof of its good intentions, is greatly at variance with UN mandates. Iraq must first agree to admit the inspectors for a period of 60 days --- inspect first, talk later. The US and Britain have dismissed the talk-first-inspect-later overture as a meaningless ploy.
At this juncture, one thing is certain. While no one can predict with any degree of accuracy what effect the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein would have on the region and the world, his continued rule and overt bellicose aims against civilized society can no longer be tolerated.
May divine providence guide those empowered to make hard choices to decide whether to root out the cancer or be killed by it.
|
All Rights Reserved For information or problems with this page contact: editor@ThePanamaNews.com |
|
|
|
 |