Skip to main content
The largest online newspaper archiveArchive Home
The Boston Globe from Boston, Massachusetts • 19
A Publisher Extra® Newspaper

The Boston Globe from Boston, Massachusetts • 19

Publication:
The Boston Globei
Location:
Boston, Massachusetts
Issue Date:
Page:
19
Extracted Article Text (OCR)

The Boston Globe Opinion A19 FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2003 time Do Novj mm Vuvnk we wai. Scot Lehigh The endgame has begun H.D.S. Greenway A compelling case is made for action Iraq for its supposed intentions. To that Powell pointed out that Saddam Hussein is already a convicted criminal in the eyes of 17 Security Council ments may demur, but it is "hard to see how extra time will convert them." The world is fast reaching a moment similar to that of Munich in 1938. Neville Chamberlain had a choice between dishonor and war.

Winston Churchill said at the time: "He chose dishonor. He will get war." The choice today is containment or war. My fear is that containing Iraq is a failed policy and that if we choose containment over war, we will still get war, and a worse war when Saddam has achieved his clandestine weapons goals. regulations. Why should he be allowed to break parole? It is not as if Saddam is a first offender.

Even the Sphinx-like chief inspector, Hans Blix, said that Iraq "appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it." Blix told The New York Times that he had not "pleaded for continuing inspections because I havent seen a change of attitude on the part of Iraq." As a former Swedish prime minister and diplomat, Carl Bildt, recently wrote of Iraq: There are reasons in the world to try and find a better alternative than war. But we must not go back to where we were The alternative of just backing down, returning to the profoundly failed and damaging policies of the past and waiting for the next eruption of tensions, could not be seriously contemplated." Britain's foreign secretary, Jack Straw, referred to the fate of the League of Nations after World War good intentions, but "small evils went unanswered. Tyrants became emboldened until before their eyes the evil became too big to challenge." From China, Russia, and France, there came pleas for soldiering on with the inspectors, even doubling or tripling them, perhaps to contain Iraq rather than to disarm it. France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin pleaded for filling whatever "unused space" there might be in Res olution 1441. I have argued in this column that pursuing Iraq at this juncture was a mistaken priority, that it would distract from the war on terror, and that solving the Palestinian problem first would better "drain the swamp" of terrorism than going after Iraq at this juncture.

And I am terrified of imperial overreach in a postwar Iraq. But now that the case of Iraq has been brought before the high court of the United Nations and adjudicated, I find myself in agreement with The Economist that if the Security Council fails to act, "it will not be because of a lack of time or a failure of diplomacy. It will be because of a difference of opinion." Govern THERE WASNT a stunning Perry Mason climax in Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council on Wednesday. Nor was there quite an Adlai Stevenson moment, the displaying of unmistakable photographic evidence that instantly reveals a foreign ambassador's hypocrisy for all the world to see. The secretary of state's photographs were a little less clear-cut, requiring annotation, explanation, and inter pretation.

Still, it was only a small inferential step, and not a leap of faith, that Powell asked the United Nation to make. And over the course of his 80-minute presentation, Powell built a cogent, convincing case that Iraq has undertaken a systematic effort to deceive UN in-specters. There were the photographs showing suspected weapons sites being evacuated and concealed before in- specters were due; there were intercepted conversations in which Iraqi military officers discussed coverup -s and deception efforts; there were reports from defectors about mobile biological weapons factories; there was ft new information strengthening the argument that the controversial aluminum tubes Iraq has tried to import were intended for nuclear weapons production rather than rocket use and the reminder that either use was prohibited to Iraq. It was a presentation that built upon itself, piece by piece, bolstered by revealing bits of intelligence, an evidence-based case made by a reasonable man for ration- al people. For those who dismissed the videotape of Osama bW Laden boasting about the Sept 1 1 terrorists attacks as a US fabrication, for the conspiracy theorists who think the true US motive is to seize control of Iraqi oil fields, for those who are sure that George W.

Bush and Tony Blair are hellbent on world domination and are willing to manufacture evidence to achieve it, Powell's presentation certainly wont prove persuasive, But for sober-minded individuals willing to weigh real-world evidence, Powell built a compelling case that! Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction, remains intent on acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, and continues in its determination to hoodwink UN inspectors. 'rt Even the French seemed to concede the last point though that concession hasnt changed their remedy. "Given the choice between military intervention and an inspections regime that is inadequate because of a failure to cooperate on Iraq's part, we must choose the decisive reinforcements of the means of inspections," said Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. Translation: Although chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said the inspections process wasnt meant to be a game of cat and mouse, France is willing to let it be just that and indefinitely so. (How, to paraphrase Charles de Gaulle, do you stiffen the spine of a country that has 246 different types of cheese?) Still, the power of Powell's UN presentation means the endgame with Iraq has begun.

-1 Perhaps, with his duplicity revealed, Saddam, an in-'' veterate practitioner of brinkmanship, will now admit the truth, as his regime has done in past instances when its mendacity was exposed. Certainly it's worth taking little more time to press for that to happen. H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe. Derrick Z.

Jackson How much will a war cost? NO ONE WATCHING Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation before the Security Council Wednesday could seriously doubt that Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 1441. What reasonable people can disagree on is what to do about it. Powell's briefing was not only breathtaking in scope but utterly convincing. Perhaps one could take issue with one bit of evidence or another, but not the total effect Powell had said that he would not be presenting a "smoking gun," but, as James Rubin of the Clinton State Department put it, he produced a "smoking intercept." Of all the evidence Powell put forth, the most compelling was the telephone and wireless intercepts in which we heard Iraqi officers telling each other to "evacuate everything" and to stop referring to nerve gas in the open. The point, however, was never to produce a smoking gun.

The point was to establish whether or not Iraq is abiding by Security Council Resolution 1441, which states that "false statements and omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations." The slim hope and given Saddam Hussein's record it was always a long shot that he would cooperate with the United Nations inspectors and disarm is dying before our eyes. If the Security Council is serious about implementing 1441, then the document Iraq produced in December was, as historian Timothy Garton Ash described it, the world's longest suicide note. Powell revealed a shocking number of secrets Wednesday in the cause of coalition building and international consensus. The Iraqis now know our capacities to eavesdrop and track them from the sky. They wont be making the same mistakes again.

But it was worth it if the Bush administration's multilateral approach can be maintained. If not, as Powell famously said at Davos a couple of weeks ago: "Multilaterialism cannot become an excuse for inaction." So what to do about it? Some will argue that Saddam may have these weapons, but that doesnt mean that he will use them. To that, Powell asked, "Why should any of us give Iraq the benefit of the doubt?" Others will argue that preventive war is unacceptable and that we should not attack Meanwhile, perhaps there is an intermediary step before military action, a way that the UN could transform its inspection efforts into a determined and continuous regimen, imposed at ultimatum's point, that would move beyond mere inspection to monitor the before the battle is engaged. Politics does not end at the water's edge, but it is surely silenced when the first shot is fired." What also is clearly being silenced is a serious discussion of what comes afterwards, even if an attack on Iraq actually results in a swift and relatively inexpensive victory. "It is difficult to see how a successful occupation of Iraq could be less than five years and might easily extend for two decades," Nordhaus wrote.

"While there are no public estimates of the total, a minimum cost would be $75 billion, and an upper bound of $500 billion over the next decade is consistent with peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and the size and scope of the task in Iraq." Just as important, the nation has yet to debate how closely Bush's rush to war mirrors Lyndon Johnson's. Without any proof of an imminent threat, it is fair to ask if Bush is foolishly dragging the nation into a personal vendetta against Saddam 12 years after Bush's father was criticized by the right wing for not destroying Saddam's army instead letting it flee home to rebuild after being driven out of Kuwait The cost of war may turn out to be low, but the cost of a successful peace looks very steep," Nordhaus wrote. "If American taxpayers decline to pay the bills for ensuring the long-term health of Iraq, America would leave behind mountains of rubble and mobs of angry people. As the world learned from the Carthaginian peace that settled World War the cost of a botched peace may be even higher than the price of a bloody war." IN HIS STUDY on the possible cost of invading Iraq, Yale University economist William Nordhaus issues a sober reminder that governments almost always grossly underestimate the financial toll. The Civil War cost the North $3.2 billion in current dollars, 13 times more than the original estimate by Abraham Lincoln's Treasury secretary.

The costs of Vietnam were underestimated by 90 percent, with a final cost of between $110 billion and $150 billion. The historical record is littered with failed forecasts about the economic, political, and military outcomes of wars," Nordhaus wrote in his report published last fall by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has projected that an attack and occupation of Iraq could cost as little as $99 billion but as much as $1.9 trillion over the next decade. "With hindsight, would the ministers of George III have risked the empire for the principle of levying a tax on tea?" Nordhaus wrote. "Would the Southerners have seceded and provoked a civil war if they had known the devastation that would follow? Would the Germans have provoked World Wars I and II? Would Japan have bombed Pearl Harbor? Would the United States have sent half a million men to Vietnam?" In Vietnam, Nordhaus wrote, Lyndon Johnson was "foolishly sucked into a psychology where honor and credibility are valued above the lives of combatants and the livelihoods of citizens." In Johnson's case, "both credibility and the economy end up as casualties." Nordhaus, who served on Jimmy Carter's Council of Economic Advisers, said there is no doubt that Saddam, most notably in his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, has long displayed what author Barbara Tuchman described nearly 20 years ago in The March of Folly" as "wooden-headedness" and "self-deception." But Nordhaus bravely wonders out loud if the United States is also deceiving itself about the need to attack Saddam and Bush's guarantees of victory.

"In contrast to clear danger from terrorist activities, there is no imminent threat from Iraq," Nordhaus wrote. "A war in Iraq threatens to claim the scarce The cost of keeping a successful peace may be steep. resources and attention of the United States for many years. A stagnant economy, fiscal deficits, a persistent crisis of corporate governance, growing healthcare problems and trouble spots in the rest of the world all these would take a back seat if the United States gets bogged down in issues of war and peace in Iraq. "If wars are thought to be short, cheap, and bloodless, then it is easier to persuade the populace and the Congress to defer to the president If the American people are led to believe that a war with Iraq will be like the first Persian Gulf war or like the Afghanistan conflict, then they may believe that war will not disrupt life or comforts and the world will be rid of a terrible tyrant "Moreover, if optimistic forecasts prove wrong, it is much easier to raise the extra billions of dollars once troops are in the field and bullets are flying than workings of crucial aspects of Saddam's regime on a daily basis.

As a way to avoid the carnage and uncertainties' of war, that would be an option worth exploring. And there might even be a role for France as an elev-1 enth-hour interlocutor. Now, if it were a book, The GlaZ ries of Post-Napoleonic French Foreign Policy would ft have to be stacked a dozen high even to serve as a door-il stop. But there's an opportunity here for Jacques Chirac, Saddam's longtime enabler and president of thej nation that built Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, knowing it was intended to produce fuel for a nuclear bomb. Chirac could travel to Baghdad to visit the tyrant he hosted in a Paris back in 1975.

He might counsel Saddam that time is fast running out might confide that see-no-evil France can no longer stall a coalition inclined to believe evidence rather than blandishments. And, that being so, he might persuade Saddam to gather his family in tow and depart for a life of asylum ri somewhere along the sunny Cote d'Azur. That would truly be le beau geste. Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jacksongbbe.com.

Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehighghbe.com. inn mil i mini ii iHiiimHiiiiiniimimiimininii HnnHnHiMiiiHiniiiiiiiiHHiiHniniiHiHiMiiiiiiHiHniiiiniiiHHniHinHHiHiiiininiiiiiiHHiniiiHniniiinHiHiiiHHiiMiiiHinHniiiinnn iiiitiniiiti iinmiiiiiHiiimmiiiiiiiiiHiimiiiiniHiimiiiii David Moberg The world needs a new kind of globalization in making sure that corporations and other economic institutions, such as the cooperatives his labor movement has fostered, serve the needs of the population. Much of the criticism of contemporary globalization has been generated by a wide assortment of new social move- say that it's possible to change the rules set by those elites, which over the past two decades have encouraged rapid globalization and a deregulated, pro-corporate model for the economy. If anyone symbolizes that hope, it's Brazil's new president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who spoke to a throng in Porto Alegre before going to tentative globalization. These involve, first of all, greater autonomy for nations in how they participate in the world economy for example, by regulating foreign investment to suit domestic interests.

Other alternatives focus on establishing more regulations at the international level to provide the al Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization, critics of globalization will have to link their protests more to politics, electing national leaders such as da Silva who have a chance of directly shaping the new rules. Given the power that the United States has in all of these global institutions, political success in our country would have the greatest impact There is no da Silva waiting in the wings of American politics. But there's no reason why the vigorous grass-roots organizing that already exists in the United States cant learn some lessons from that success. And there's even reason to hope that the Democratic Party could be steered toward support for an alternative model of globalization less beholden to big corporations and more responsive to the needs of ordinary people and the sentiments of most voters. The new social movements will still be needed to hold officials accountable, but it will be far easier if they first elect governments that share their aims, as Brazilians recently haw done.

Pro-corporate rules set by the elites harm the environment and hurt the poor. same kinds of protections for workers, the environment, and the poor that most advanced industrial Davos to deliver his message that the rich countries should establish a fund to help relieve hunger and THERE WAS A strong conviction among tens of thousands of citizen activists who gathered in Porto Alegre, Brazil, for six days late last month for the World Social Forum that the rules and institutions of the global economy have lost their legitimacy. While most people around the world have hopes for benefits from a closer linkage among different nations, according to a recent survey of 25 countries by a Canadian firm, Environics, they also worry that globalization now harms the environment threatens many jobs, concentrates wealth more than it creates broad opportunities, and does little to help the poorest billions of people on the planet The World Social Forum, first held in Porto Alegre three years ago, was founded as a counterpoint to the annual gathering of the world's business and political elite at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Participants at the Brazilian meeting ments and nonprofit advocacy groups as well as trade unions and well-established environmental organizations. Despite success in raising Issues and at times raising Cain, these movements are still far from success.

In order to move to the next level in their quest to prove that "another world is possible," they are going to have to do two things. First they need to continue to elaborate on their proposals foranal- poverty. Da Silva a child of poverty who became a union leader and then candidate of a political party that deeply believes in grass-roots participation in politics is remarkable not only as an individual but as a product of decades of innovative labor and community organizing. His government stands not as a repudiation of expanding global trade but as a commitment to the role of government countries enacted as they tried to civilize the raw capitalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries. To take one example, there could be a tiny tax on global currency and financial transactions that might deter some destructive speculation and capital flows and at the same time generate funds for development in poor countries.

But in order to win serious changes in organizations such as the Intemation- David Moberg is a senior editor at the newsmagazine In These Times. 8 tflllIIHIMIIIItMIIIIIIIIIIJItllilllllllllllIlinillMltllllllllltlltMMltMlllllllllllllttlHIII1lltllltllfllllltMtlltlllllirilt If'tllll lltl III lltlltf II HUM HltlMlllltttHII Hltlf ttltltllf It tMtt ttlMIIIIMIMItllllHltlMt(llllltllttlMlfMHMlMlttt1t1HttIIIHIItlllMlltllltMtlllIIMMIIIIIIIIMIIMIIIIII.

Get access to Newspapers.com

  • The largest online newspaper archive
  • 300+ newspapers from the 1700's - 2000's
  • Millions of additional pages added every month

Publisher Extra® Newspapers

  • Exclusive licensed content from premium publishers like the The Boston Globe
  • Archives through last month
  • Continually updated

About The Boston Globe Archive

Pages Available:
4,494,044
Years Available:
1872-2024