u.n. --- r.i.p. , page-9

editorial: the un's last chance Feb. 5, 2003
EDITORIAL: The UN's last chance

Scratch everything we've said about Secretary of State Colin Powell. We love him. Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council was masterful and devastating. He reduced any conceivable case for inaction in Iraq to rubble.
The case itself, not even counting what follows, was a powerful example of American leadership and diplomacy.

After weeks of hounding to produce evidence, Powell trotted out if not the crown jewels some awfully persuasive pearls. America spends billions on what are antiseptically called "national technical means," and rarely has a chance to show the results.

This was one presentation that must be seen (www.state.gov), not just read in a transcript or news reports. Viewers were treated to clear conversations between Iraqi officers who obviously had orders to dupe the inspectors and hide evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Satellite photos also clearly showed biological weapons facilities before and after their sanitization by Iraq pre-inspection.

The very fact that the US was willing to reveal such highly classified intelligence demonstrates how determined the US is to disarm Saddam. Perhaps as importantly, it sends a signal worldwide what capabilities accrue to the world's sole superpower and what confronts any rogue nation that attempts to remain on the wrong side of the post-9/11 divide. To the US message that governments must get out of the terror game a newsflash has been added: Don't think you can hide what you are doing.

It is in this vein that Powell's presentation represented another breakthrough. For the first time, the US government laid out a detailed case connecting the threat from Iraq to terror in general and to al-Qaida in particular.

We have never understood how serious people can see no connection between ousting Saddam and the war on terror, much less the claim that attacking Iraq is a distraction from or harmful to that effort. It is obvious to us that severing the link between terrorist groups and states that provide them with safe haven and diplomatic, financial, intelligence, and logistical support is the sine qua non of anything calling itself a war against terrorism.

It is also inarguable that Iraq is one such state. Do we really have to wait for some terrorist group to use biological or chemical weapons before we act on the fact that Iraq is producing and hiding tons of such poisons? The nations that continue to oppose the United States should at least have the integrity to admit that this is no longer a debate about the facts. As Powell said, Iraq is in material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which was designed to confirm Iraq's decision to disarm, not to disprove fallacious declarations or chase after biolabs the size of a truck in a country the size of California.

After Powell spoke, the French, German, Chinese, and Russian representatives dutifully thanked him and proceeded to read canned responses calling for tighter inspections. These same countries were at the forefront of gutting the inspection regime a short time ago, reducing Powell to a campaign for "smart sanctions" that were tantamount to an admission that Saddam had won.

America's critics are essentially trying to replay the "bad movie" that President George W. Bush understandably says he is reminded of. Actually, the movie line that comes to our mind is Jack Nicholson's in A Few Good Men: "Truth? You can't handle the truth!" Why pretend that France or any other country must be convinced that Iraq is hiding its weapons programs, supports terror, violates human rights, and is a menace to the world? If the quavering Security Council does not support the US, it is because they know the truth, but will attempt to resist US leadership until the last second, and after their choices have been reduced to ratifying a given or being left behind.

The Security Council may well come around after the inspectors submit their "final" report on February 14. But even if they do, it is a shame that democratic countries must signal that, if they had their druthers, they would prefer to lay the groundwork for a much worse war than the one they are attempting to avoid.

In the 1930s, the League of Nations ignored similar warnings that Germany was violating the arms limitations imposed upon it by the Treaty of Versailles.

One can imagine Winston Churchill making a presentation like the one Powell made yesterday. It is not necessary to imagine the war that came when those warnings were not heeded, and that the League of Nations itself became a casualty of that war. Saddam has lost his last chance. The question now is, will the United Nations lose its as well?