What the U.N. Resolutions Require of Saddam’s Iraq : They add up to a message that’s sharp, clear and sensible

Words have meaning, which is why lawyers and diplomats choose them with care when writing contracts, treaties or U.N. resolutions. That precision, paradoxically, applies no less when it comes to selecting words that are deliberately ambiguous. Most of the dozen resolutions passed by the U.N. Security Council after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait are couched in unmistakably straightforward language. But one phrase, about using all necessary means “to restore international peace and security in the area,” is notable for its calculated ambiguity. This wording is being used by the victorious American-led coalition as the political sanction for pursuing one of its major military goals: Insisting that Iraq’s army must depart from Kuwait largely disarmed and visibly defeated.

Iraq has so far bitterly resisted this demand, just as it has refused to agree explicitly to all U.N. demands, except--too late to do it any good--the one calling for its unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait. For a time Baghdad seemed to have a powerful ally. The Soviet Union, pressing what it called a peace initiative, sought to mediate a settlement on the basis of withdrawal alone. Moscow proposed that the pullout should take place over three weeks, during which a cease-fire would be in effect. That would have allowed Iraq ample time to bring out its heavy arms and so maintain its war-making potential. Understandably, Washington and its allies said nothing doing. On Tuesday, the Soviet Union joined the other permanent members of the Security Council to insist that Iraq accede unconditionally to all 12 resolutions.

Saddam Hussein is now left utterly without bargaining power, if indeed any at all remained to him after President Bush’s coalition-supported ultimatum last Friday. As things now stand--and it is hard to conceive that matters will soon change--these are the imperatives that will remain in effect until the Security Council determines otherwise:

--Iraqi forces in Kuwait must be withdrawn unconditionally.

--The economic sanctions that were ordered Aug. 6 will remain in force until the Security Council lifts them. Any such vote is subject to a veto by the United States or any of the other four permanent council members.

--The naval blockade authorized to enforce sanctions remains in place for the time being.

--Iraq must formally renounce its annexation of Kuwait, which the Security Council has declared null and void.

--Iraq remains liable under international law for “any loss, damage or injury arising in regard to Kuwait and third states, and their nationals and corporations, as a result of the invasion and illegal occupation of Kuwait.” The resolution does not call for “reparations,” which means paying compensation for injury. It does call for restitution or financial compensation. Kuwait has said it will insist on payment for the harm suffered by its citizens and the damage to property inflicted by Iraq.

These were not unfair or excessively burdensome demands at the time they were voted, and they are not unfair or excessive now. Iraq committed a flagrant international crime, and then compounded it with a brutal and destructive occupation and by provoking a costly war.

The United States, strongly supported by Britain and others, believes that no territorial, material or political benefits should accrue from this crime. Saddam Hussein should be denied any basis for claiming a moral or political victory. He must be left with his ability to wage war neutralized. The hope of restoring “international peace and security in the area” requires that he be largely disarmed and thoroughly discredited. It requires international cooperation to prevent Iraq from rebuilding its aggressive arsenal, especially of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The United States is about to begin conferring with its major allies about peace terms in the Iraq war. The outline of what’s needed, inherent in the U.N. resolutions, is sharp, clear and sensible.