Issue date: 2/12/03 Section: Opinion

Last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented evidence for the United Nations to convince the U.N. Security Council that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. resolutions. His presentation had the intent of justifying U.N. military action against Iraq, even though the United States and its few allies are already planning the inevitable war with Iraq, which could occur as early as March. While Powell's speech offered damaging evidence about Iraq's actions, it did not offer enough concrete evidence that justifies military action at this time. Instead, U.N. inspectors need more time -- possibly months -- to find conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein has not only violated U.N. resolutions, but has biological, chemical and nuclear capabilities.

There is a distinct consensus among most of the world after Powell's speech: Iraq is not fully cooperating with the United Nations or its inspectors. However, many still do not believe this is reason enough to attack Iraq. Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control Gary Milhollin said, "I think he made a strong case that Iraq is not cooperating with the U.N. and is in material breach of Resolution 1441, but Mr. Powell had not demonstrated that the U.S. faced an imminent threat from Iraq," according to The New York Times.

While many agree that Iraq has not been complying with U.N. Resolution 1441, weapons inspection only began on Nov. 27, 2002 -- less than three months ago. The inspection teams have just begun their search and have not had the chance to thoroughly investigate Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. While inspections may continue for weeks, Powell warned the council that the United Nations has little choice but to act in the face of such evidence of Iraqi behavior, essentially serving notice that the Bush administration has made up its mind and is ready to launch an invasion of Iraq to force Saddam from power with or without formal U.N. backing, according to The Washington Post.

Powell's speech and the Bush administration's stance have made it clear that regardless of the evidence of an Iraqi threat, or lack thereof, nothing is going to stop the war machine from rolling into Iraq. As for the Iraq/al-Qaida link, it has not been definitely proven. According to The New York Times, Powell asserted that Osama bin Laden met with senior Iraqi intelligence officials, and he even went as far as to add that 'extremists' affiliated with al-Qaida have taken up residence in Baghdad and set up a base of operations there. Yet, this evidence does not provide concise or compelling connections between the terrorist groups and the Iraqi government. Many countries, because of their diverse inhabitants, are both unwilling and willing homes to terrorist cells without being directly involved with those groups. It is hard to conclusively say whether Iraq is linked to al-Qaida with the evidence Powell offered, but it is clear that it is a claim that should be investigated by U.N. inspectors.

Instead of setting March as the possible start date for the war, inspectors should be given adequate time to investigate the allegations and evidence provided by Powell's speech. War is not inevitable. If anything, Powell's speech has shown the need to allow weapons inspectors more time to do their job. If Iraq has biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, then appropriate action should be taken, but not until the U.N. inspectors find sufficient evidence.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools