My complaint is that there are separate utilities available to render sanctions with & without the threat of force. If a sanction is made with the threat of force, then that threat should be carried out if the resolution is not met or is defaulted upon. Of course, things change that may make the original resolution a full or partial anachronism, but that is not the case here.
I'm sorry but this seems a bit counterfactual, as well as naive about how diplomacy actually works.
Diplomacy is meant to avert war, which was once considered the worst possible solution to any problem, by creating mechanisms for exchange (deals) or compliance (monitoring for equity between parries). Often with this comes the threat of force if agreements or certain criteria are not met.
It is the nature of all nations to avoid being roped into the agreements they have made, or to buck imposed regulations or duties. The US is a prime example of a nation which has done so, and it has protected its "friends" in the same manner. This is generally how alliances form. To criticize any nation or national leader, including Hussein, for attempting to put off imposed rules it did not want is a bit of hypocrisy.
It is also easy to accuse someone of being a coward or "bluffing" when the other party simply has not reached the actual limit where it will agree that force to ensure resolution or punish is necessary. It is easy because it is ad hominem and does not take into account arguments for the use of force at a particular time. In this case the parties against invading made a pretty good case, and as it turns out were right.
As long as the worst possible effects are avoided, mass deaths from war, diplomacy is doing its job.
Why are the members not saying, enough is enough?
If you wish to debate the negligence of all nations in pursuing a strong policy against Iraq during the 90's you may have a point. There was negligence, but that is because Iraq had successfully been contained and it did not pose a threat to anyone. Thus it went onto the backburner of international attention.
Within nations legislations get drafted to "stop" something, and then when it leaves the public stage the gov't does not apply adequate resources or follow up on its legislation so that that thing is actually stopped.
International politics are the same. As it turns out Bush did light a fire under the tails of the international community to revisit Iraqi policy. To be fair he had the exact same stance as the international community until 9/11 (I have already posted his administrations stated position on Iraq in another thread), and it is likely true that most nations were interested in revisiting Iraq policy anyway post 9/11.
The community did say "enough is enough" and granted the threat of force be used due to noncompliance.
No he wasn’t. That was the point. Agreeing to allow inspectors into a region 3 months after they turn up at the gates defeats the point of inspections that can catch him out; he defaulted anyway, many times; therefore the threat of force didn't work. Why not send him an itinerary & be done with it?
I am sorry but this is not accurate. Whether he dragged his feet and initially obfuscated is besides the point, and even more besides the point is what he had done to hinder monitoring during the 90's.
The threat of force DID work, and the inspection teams were moving forward. The heads of the inspection teams shortly before the US began the invasion and halted the inspections, released a report saying that Hussein was complying and they would be able to complete their mission.
I am still a little confused as to how you can imply that Hussein was actually in defiance and hiding activities, when it is now known that he had nothing except intent and the bare beginnings of programs? If anything it appears that he was trying to hide the extent of the damage to his forces and so still appear a military power which can throw its weight around... much like Israel is doing with its hiding of nuclear capabilities.
The parameter that seemed to have been set by the US , and which you appear to be buying into, is that he was guilty and so he could only show he was complying by coming clean and exhibiting the programs and weapons we claimed he had. But of course he didn't and so he actually was complying in that he was showing he had nothing... or essentially nothing.
Do you think the UN should bluff, & have its credibility & integrity damaged when the bluff is called?
No, I don't think the UN should bluff and I don't think its wise to do so and let it be called such that its credibility is damaged. However in this case the UN's position was that there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that Iraq was in material breach of the resolutions, and before the invasion stopped inspections that the inspections process was being complied with and providing information.
On the other hand the US and UK bluffed that they had solid evidence of wmds and programs for wmds and connections to AQ, and as it turns out they had no such thing (even before the invasion the yellow cake forgeries had been debunked), and so wrecked US and UK credibility. There was also the claim that there would be popular Iraqi support, and that it would essentially pay for itself, which was not true.
Heck, Bush and Blair even bluffed they'd submit a resolution to the UN for actual authorization for the use of force, and then didn't when their bluff was called.
I submit to you that it was the US and UK that bluffed, not the UN. It was the US and UK that got depantsed, not the UN.
I must ask again, when you think we should have invaded prior to the actual invasion and what it would have prevented, or how it would have turned out better than the current invasion?
Saddam never stopped being a brinksman. There was nowhere else to go regarding the C7 resolutions. The inspectors were continually prevented from gaining access as per the resolution, in spite of the threat force.
All nations are brinksman, that is the nature of diplomacy. The best defense is good monitoring programs with strong carrot and stick approaches. Contrary to your assertion, the credible threat of the stick did result in compliance which the inpectors themselves explained in their report. As it turns out, post invasion inspections have revealed that despite his years of brinksmanship Saddam was in relative compliance with resolutions. In the end he had allowed access and we were finding exactly what he had... nothing but intent.
I have to say I am surprised at our disagreement on this issue. You are usually stead fast to evidence, and the evidence is clear at this point in time.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2