Iraq EARNED the ‘rogue state’ moniker
Dear Editor,
Our choice of words is important as we discuss today’s issues. As Leon D’Sousa questioned current U.S. foreign policy with regard to Iraq, he used an interesting phrase: “What’s to stop us from waging war with…any of the other nations that have EARNED that abhorrent moniker of ‘rogue state'”? [emphasis added]. At the same time many, the world over, are crying for diplomacy and peaceful DISARMAMENT. Everyone seems to recognize that Iraq is justifiably called a rogue nation, and that there is a clear need to remove the tools of mass destruction from Saddam’s reach. Unfortunately, rogue nations are characterized by their disregard for international standards of conduct and low interest in human rights. How has Iraq earned its place in infamy? Twelve years ago, as a condition of peace, Iraq was required to disarm. The U.N. sent weapons inspectors that worked in Iraq for more than seven years before being refused access to military sites by the Iraqi government. There was then a four-year period during which no inspection occured. In a surprise move last August, as reported by USA Today, weapons inspectors were invited to return to Baghdad, coincidentally at the same time that the focus on terrorism shifted outward from Afghanistan. Why the sudden interest? Eleven years of no cooperation and suddenly the Iraqi government wants to play by the rules? Right. After three months of inspections Hans Blix noted that Iraq’s cooperation could hardly be described as that required in resolution 1441, and registered disappointment and disbelief that Iraq’s highly developed administrative system could not provide clearer documentation of the destruction of certain weapons. As Tony Blair said, “It is not a game of hide and seek, where the inspectors try their best to find the weapons and Saddam does his best to conceal them”. Unfortunately this is exactly what has happened.As far as the U.S. “sidelining the United Nations in virtually every decision of consequence”, perhaps the other side of that statement deserves some scrutiny. Maybe the Security Council has been rendered itself irrelevant by its own inaction.As for me, I would trust my safety to George Bush long before I put it in the hands of Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac, or the communist party in China.
Ricky Fieldingrlfielding@cc.usu.edu(435) 770-8569student number: 519-17-2316