On Thursday morning they [the French] rolled over to support U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 that to a large extent legalizes the invasion and occupation of Iraq – previously denounced by most of the council as illegal. It is almost as if a jury returned a verdict of justified homicide for a lynch mob.France, the nation of unilateralism and violations of EU regulations. France, a nation that entertains Robert Mugabe at a state dinner. As for the jury, maybe it's more like 12 Angry Men where one juror slowly persuades the rest of them to a very different opinion than they had at the start.
The resolution leaves "The Authority," as the occupying powers euphemistically call themselves, in full control of Iraq. Am I alone in being reminded of "The Organization" that used to rule the roost in Pol Pot's Cambodia?Yes, it's just you and other people with limited vocabularies. You could at least selected "Palestinian Authority" instead which is another brutal, genocidal dictatorshiop that actually has the same word in the title so it must be very similar. Oh, wait, the PA is a good brutal, genocidal dictatorship (like Pol Pot used to be before he went out of fashion).
The other cosmetic concession was that the Security Council would review the resolution in six months. But typically, the U.S. could veto any attempt to change it. The Russians were insisting that the U.N. weapons inspectors declare Iraq disarmed before sanctions were lifted.Tha's right, we should keep the Iraqis poor and starving until Hans Blix decides he's had enough of a well paying cushy job. That's real concern.
The by-play over the inspectors is highly revealing about the motivations and the powers involved. The British would very much like to see the U.N. inspectors back in Iraq, since they realize that the refusal to admit them makes nonsense of their entire legal case for the war. And, in the increasingly unlikely case that anyone other than Judith Miller of The New York Times finds any weapons, no one will believe weapons are there unless the U.N. is involved.This is revealing. Note that the important part to justifying the war isn't finding WMD in Iraq but letting in the UN inspectors. I've just never seen it stated so baldly. And frankly, I would begin to doubt the presence of WMD if they were found by the UN. I suspect that even if the UN did find WMD, those who won't believe the Coalition won't believe the UN either based on the same logic as the start of this editorial, that the UN has sold out to appease the US.
So is there any upside? Well, up to a point. The U.S. was forced to come back to the U.N. because it could not legally sell Iraq's oil without a Security Council resolution and because even alleged coalition countries wanted a U.N. resolution before they would join in the occupation. The U.S. had to admit that it was, in fact, an Occupying power.The idea that the US was forced back to the UN shows a deep misunderstanding of the situation. The vote in the UNSC was a favor to the other UNSC members to show that if they are cooperative, we won't squash them like the insects they are. Iraq couldn't legally sell oil before invasion and that never stopped the Ba'ath. Note the implication that the US would be bound by "international law" in the case of Iraqi oil despite the fact that no other nation seems to have been. I also don't remember the US denying it was an occupying power.
The real problem that the Left has with recent US actions is that the US is starting to act like other nations - doing what it wants and then getting the UN to post-facto approve of it. The peaceniks and do-gooders have rendered the UN incapable of actually doing anything, so who are they to complain when it does nothing against the US? Isn't that what they wanted?