[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 121 (Monday, September 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Page S9030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            DECISION ON IRAQ

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to have printed in the Record an op-ed 
by columnist Charles Krauthammer discussing the United Nations and its 
debate over how to deal with Iraq. Mr. Krauthammer makes the point that 
nations are driven by their own self-interests; thus, members of the 
U.N. Security Council--such as France, Russia, and China--all have 
varied perspectives on a potential confrontation with Iraq.
  He argues that it is not ``unseemly'' for the United States to 
similarly act in the name of its own interests. And that it is, in his 
words, an ``absurdity'' to suggest that the U.S. is suddenly granted 
``moral legitimacy'' by U.N. Security Council approval for its actions, 
since the Security Council itself is composed of member states acting 
in their own self interests.
  I ask unanimous consent the op-ed by Mr. Krauthammer be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Is This the Way To Decide on Iraq?

                        (By Charles Krauthammer)

       There is something deeply deranged about the Iraq debate.
       The vice president, followed by the administration A Team 
     and echoing the president, argues that we must remove from 
     power an irrational dictator who has a history of aggression 
     and mass murder, is driven by hatred of America and is 
     developing weapons of mass destruction that could kill 
     millions of Americans in a day. The Democrats respond with 
     public skepticism, a raised eyebrow and the charge that the 
     administration has yet to ``make the case.''
       Then on Sept. 12, the president goes to the United Nations 
     and argues that this same dictator must be brought to heel to 
     vindicate some Security Council resolutions and thus rescue 
     the United Nations from irrelevance. The Democrats swoon. 
     ``Great speech,'' they say. ``Why didn't you say that in the 
     first place? Count us in.''
       When the case for war is made purely in terms of American 
     national interest--in terms of the safety, security and very 
     lives of American citizens--chins are pulled as the Democrats 
     think it over. But when the case is the abstraction of being 
     the good international citizen and strengthening the House of 
     Kofi, the Democrats are ready to parachute into Baghdad.
       This hierarchy of values is bizarre but not new. Liberal 
     internationalism--the foreign policy school of the modern 
     Democratic Party (and of American liberalism more 
     generally)--is deeply suspicious of actions taken for reasons 
     of naked interest. After all, this is the party that in the 
     last decade voted overwhelmingly against the Persian Gulf 
     War, where vital American interests were at stake (among 
     them, keeping the world's largest reservoir of oil out of the 
     hands of a hostile dictator), while supporting humanitarian 
     military interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, 
     places with only the remotest connection to American security 
     interests.
       This is all sweet and nice. And highly, flatteringly moral. 
     But is this the way to decide when to risk the lives of brave 
     young Americans?
       This fawning over the president's rescue-the-U.N. rationale 
     is not just sentimental, it is illogical. Assume--big 
     assumption--that the United Nations does act and passes a 
     resolution magnanimously allowing Americans to fight and die 
     in Iraq. How does that rescue the United Nations from 
     irrelevance? Under a feckless U.S. administration that 
     allowed things to drift, the United Nations sat on its hands 
     through the 1990s and did nothing. If not for this American 
     president who threatens to invade on his own if he has to, 
     the United Nations would still be doing nothing. The United 
     Nations is irrelevant one way or the other. It is acting now 
     only because of American pressure. It will go back to sleep 
     tomorrow when America eases that pressure.
       And what is the moral logic underlying the Democrats' 
     demand for U.N. sanctions? The country's top Democrat, Sen. 
     Tom Daschle, said that U.N. support ``will be a central 
     factor in how quickly Congress acts. If the international 
     community supports it, if we can get the information we've 
     been seeking, then I think we can move to a [Senate] 
     resolution.''
       Daschle's insistence on the centrality of a U.N. stamp of 
     approval is puzzling. How does this work? In what way does 
     the approval of the Security Council confer moral legitimacy 
     on this enterprise? Perhaps Daschle can explain how the 
     blessing of the butchers of Tiananmen Square, who hold the 
     Chinese seat on the Security Council, lends moral authority 
     to an invasion of Iraq. Or the support of the Kremlin, whose 
     central interest in Iraq is the $8 billion that it owes 
     Russia.
       Or the French. There can be no Security Council approval 
     without them. Does Daschle imagine that their approval will 
     hinge on humanitarian calculations? If the French come on 
     board it will be because they see an Anglo-American train 
     headed for Baghdad and they don't want to be left at the 
     station. The last time the Middle East was carved up was 
     1916, when a couple of British and French civil servants, a 
     Mr. Sykes and a Mr. Picot, drew lines on a map of the 
     crumbling Ottoman Empire. Among other goodies, France got 
     Syria and Lebanon. Britain got Iraq. The French might not 
     relish being shut out of Iraq a second time.
       My point is not to blame France or China or Russia for 
     acting in their national interests. That's what nations do. 
     That's what nations' leaders are supposed to do. My point is 
     to express wonder at Americans who find it unseemly to act in 
     the name of their own national interests and who cannot see 
     the logical absurdity of granting moral legitimacy to 
     American action only if it earns the approval of the Security 
     Council--approval granted or withheld on the most cynical 
     ground of self-interest.

                          ____________________