February 14, 2003

The French are smoooooth. Like Whipped Silk, currently the best-named skin care product out there--it sounds like a sophisticated S&M bar where you can go to get exotic frothy mixed drinks and be punished. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, although smugly full of shit up to his carefully-brushed eyebrows, was a model of apparently reasonable, rational discourse. Even the French translator was good. Very polished. An A for style and presentation, a D- for content.

The Syrians were...well, Syrians. America has an agenda, the Jews have weapons of mass destruction, Iraq is cooperating fully, et cetera. Syrian membership on the UN Security Council ends on December 31st. We'll miss them.

What is up with Jack Straw's diction? Resolution of the crisis "...willrequire...a dramaticand...peaceful change, by Saddam. This willonly be achieved ifwe, the Security Council, hold...ournerve...in the faceofthistyrant." Jack, I'm glad you're on our side in this, but listening to you pause and stop-and-go today made me want to jump out of my chair and shout, "Say it! Say it!"

Colin Powell is pissed. So pissed that he kept banging into the microphone in front of him as he made emphatic gestures. "Resolution 1441 was not about inspections. Let me say that again. Resolution 1441 was not about inspections. Resolution 1441 was about the disarmament of Iraq." BOOMF!

The mood in the chamber was obvious. The smoooooth de Villepin got applause when he finished his well-manicured seven-minute statement. Even the Germans thought that was out of line; German Foreign Minister and council president Joschka Fischer had to ask for order inside the chamber. Powell was met with stony silence. Ditto for our man Straw.

My favorite exchange? De Villepin reminded the council that France was an "old nation," which I suppose was intended to lend depth and wisdom to his remarks. In what had to be an unscripted response to that, Powell began his remarks with:

"Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, distinguished members of the council, it's a great pleasure to be here with you again to consider this very important matter, and I'm very pleased to be here as the secretary of state of a relatively new country on the face of the Earth.

But I think I can take some credit sitting here as being the representative of the oldest democracy that is assembled here around this table. I'm proud of that. A democracy that believes in peace, a nation that has tried in the course of its history to show how people can live in peace with one another, but a democracy that has not been afraid to meet its responsibilities on the world stage when it has been challenged; more importantly, when others in the world have been challenged, or when the international order has been challenged, or when the international institutions of which we are a part have been challenged."

In other words: there are fools of every age, Mr. De Villepin. So stick it in your ear.

In a post-presentation Press Briefing, Ari Fleischer focused on Blix's statement (bold type mine):

"This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."

This is true. And, when all is said and done: this is not about the three months since the passage of Resolution 1441. Jack Straw reminded the council that at the cessation of hostilities in 1991--hostilities started, unprovoked, by Iraq--Iraq was given 90 days to disarm. Now it is eleven years, several months and a few days since then. Almost twelve years of evasion and sanctions. And yet we are accused of a "rush to war." Almost twelve years.

As Blix said at the conclusion of his report:

"If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament under Resolution 687 could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of Resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short if, I quote, "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation," unquote, with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."

As I said yesterday: this is all window-dressing. But to all who accuse the Americans of unilateralism: you don't know what unilateralism looks like. Unilateralism means that we don't spend time engaging in display, carefully arranging the clothes on the diplomatic dummies in the Macy's window that is the United Nations so that it looks pleasant and attractive to passers-by. Unilateralism means reclaiming some very valuable donated real estate on Manhattan's East Side and banishing the chattering debate society to Brussels, where it seems to belong.

We are trying our damndest to convince the rest of the world of the truth: toppling Saddam Hussein is in our interest, but there is also a very real convergence with world interests. By placing obstacles in the path of dealing with Hussein with appropriate force, the United Nations and certain NATO countries are not only attempting to thwart the proper defense of the United States, they are also foolishly endangering themselves and the countries of the Middle East. Make no mistake: the United States will do what it deems necessary. It would be nice if the rest of the world would realize that it is in their interest to allow us to do it.

[Den Beste has the meme-comment. --IW]