U.N., Speak Clearly to Iraq

The United Nations’ nickname is “the Hall of Words,” so it’s no wonder John D. Negroponte, the United States’ ambassador to that body, demanded “an added sense of urgency” in the debate over sending weapons inspectors back to Iraq. Translated from the diplomatic, the phrase means, “Get off the dime.” The solution: today’s planned debate by all 15 Security Council members of the strong resolution the U.S. introduced Wednesday.

In addressing the U.N. on Sept. 12, President Bush warned that the organization was jeopardizing its credibility by failing to hold Iraq to past agreements. Since Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the Security Council has passed 16 resolutions requiring the country to, among other things, give up its weapons of mass destruction. Since 1998, Saddam Hussein has refused to let in inspectors who could determine whether he is complying. And the U.N. has remained cowed, even while insisting that Iraq is indeed dangerous.

Before his speech, Bush appeared ready to simply round up an ally or two and invade. Instead, he took the wiser course and sought U.N. backing. The United States has made concessions in trying to win support, especially from the other four permanent members, which also hold veto power. Britain is supportive, China worried, France and Russia at sword’s point with Washington.

The U.S. backed down from insisting that armed guards accompany inspectors and that the five permanent Security Council members be allowed to join inspection teams to guide them to sites where weapons development is suspected. Ostensibly, France and Russia’s remaining objections center on what would trigger military action against Iraq. Can it begin if Baghdad hampers inspections, or must the U.N. have another chance to consult and perhaps pass yet another resolution?

Part of the concern in Paris and Moscow is economic. Both nations are owed billions of dollars by Iraq and could lose lucrative contracts if Hussein is replaced by new leaders upset by past French and Russian support of Baghdad. Another motivation, says U.S. Assistant Secretary of State A. Elizabeth Jones, is both nations’ desire to “stay in the game with the big boys” and ensure they are consulted when important international decisions are made.

The Security Council will debate into next week, but its members should not allow themselves to dawdle beyond that. The French and Russians will probably amend the U.S. resolution, making some phrases vague and more open to interpretation. The U.S. would be wise to shrug and accept minor softening. What must remain clear is the warning that Iraq will suffer “serious consequences” if it continues to defy the United Nations -- and that those consequences will be more than another round of Security Council chitchat. Let Baghdad understand that it must open all facilities to inspection at a moment’s notice, with no interference, from the most ramshackle building to the most opulent presidential compound.