Doug,

You ask three questions:

1. Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?

Certainly if he wishes to remain in power. That was their reason for agreeing to comply with them during the negotiations that brought about the cease-fire in 1991.

Unfortunately, the Ba'athists need these weapons, or feel that they need these weapons, in order to lend credibility to threats against large ethnic factions within Iraq's borders.

Iraq's Kurds have enjoyed more effective protection, from the excesses of Saddam's regime, under "Operation Enduring Freedom" than the Shia muslems in the South. Iraq maintains a largely conscript army and has relied on conscripts from both the Kurdish and Shia communitities - the Kurds are no longer conscripted whereas the Shia's are still within Saddam's catchment capability. Many have fled to Iran, and many of the Shia men thrown off their land, dispossessed and forced to move elsewhere in Iraq have now chosen to seek asylum in Jordan and elsewhere. Saddam doesn't have the men so he has to have the weapons as a means of protection from possible internal insurrection.

From the short term good of the people of Iraq, Saddam should have complied with the resolutions. Had he done so UN sanctions would never have been imposed. They would however still have been subject to Sadam's rule of terror.


2. If Saddam does not comply to the Seventeen U. N. Resolutions, what should the U. N. do to bring him into compliance?

If Saddam does not comply, and does not honour his obligations to the international community, as represented by the United Nations Security Council. The terms of the cease-fire have been violated. In this particular case hostilities may recommence under the terms of existing UNSC Resolutions.


3. Should the U. N. issue Resolutions if it is not prepared to enforce them?

Ideally, No it should not. Acting responsibly the UN, in issuing its resolutions, should clearly instruct as to the course of action required to fulfil the requirements of the resolution, give a clear timetable under which such compliance shall be completed by, and finally, give a clear advance warning of the consequenses resulting from non-compliance. That warning must specifically state that enforcement by the international community use of military force is not ruled out.

Unfortunately the United Nations as a body, is not the organisation many perceive it to be. Irrespective of the ideals that brought about its creation, it has become a collection of states and governments who are represented primarily to further their own interests. And as such is seriously flawed, as is clearly demonstrated by the organisations ineffectuality, when faced with major crises that conflict with the self-interests of its member states.