The Question of Whether the U.N.

Has an Ethical Right to Inspect Saddam Husseins Palaces

Suppose that you have a fight with your neighbor concerning property lines. During the course of the dispute officials from another city interfere and insist that you stay off your neighbor's land? Believing that you are in the right, what if you refuse and the visitors begin to shoot at you and your family? To stop them from shooting, suppose you agree to let these visitors into your home to remove anything they consider dangerous? What if, until this inspection is finished, you are not allowed to go to work or provide for your family? Should these people be allowed to view even the most personal and sacred belongings as part of their investigation? This question is currently at the heart of the Iran conflict. The United States and the United Nations have adopted an absolutist stance, declaring that the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, is an evil force and a direct threat to the world. They have demanded unrestricted passage into the country but Iraq has resisted, stating that this passage should not include sites Iraq considers sacred or sovereign. When the United States declared war on Iraq in 1991 for failing to withdraw troops from neighboring Kuwait, the military force used was equivalent to the power of 7 Hiroshima bombs and a victory for the U.S. was predicted. Six weeks later, on February 28, a cease-fire was announced and the United Nations banned all of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons. To stop the bombing, Iraq agreed to allow the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to inspect all sites suspected of containing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure Iraq's cooperation with this process, the U.N. placed sanctions on the export of Iraq's oil- Resolution 986. The amount was limited to $2 billion every six months and was to be used for food and medicine. This embargo was to continue until UNSCOM declared the country weapon free. In November, when the investigative team from UNSCOM attempted to enter the palaces of Saddam Hussein to check for illegal material, they were denied admittance. The Iraq government

declared that it was a matter of "national sovereignty" and "injured the dignity...of the nation." An invitation was extended to U.N. Security Council members and diplomats in an effort to disprove the allegations that Iraq was hiding chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and long range missiles. As William James points out in his essay, "The Moral Equivalent of War", there is no practical way to prevent war in this society. However, he warns that even in times of war, we have a moral responsibility to respect what is sacred and cautions against violating human rights. The type of weapons that UNSCOM is searching for are menacing and can be hidden in places such as the palace. Iraq is capable of producing weapons that are cheap, simple to make and quite easy to conceal. At least six sites in Iraq have already been identified as having produced chemical and biological weaponry, such as anthrax, botulinum toxin and ricin. From June of 1991 to November of this year, the Iraq government has tried to obstruct UNSCOM's investigation on many occasions. Tim Trevan, the political advisor and spokesman for the U.N. commission investigating Iraq's weapons program, asserts that the act of denying access to particular areas implies that Iraq is hiding something. Further, he asks, "What can be worth foregoing the export of 3 million barrels of oil a day that Iraq has lost by not cooperating with the U.N.?" James Phillips, senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, calls for tougher sanctions against Iraq and advocates using military force to "encourage Iraq's compliance with UNSCOM." He clearly believes that the United States would not bear responsibility for the deaths of Iraq's people if Resolution 986 were rescinded- keeping Americans safe is more important than the welfare of the people unlucky enough to live in Iraq. Conversely, as Richard Wasserstrom mentions in his essay " On the Morality of War: A Preliminary Inquiry," when determining the morality of war or the actions involved with war-like activity, one must consider the deaths of innocent people. He states that this is "increasingly unjustifiable if it was negligently, recklessly, knowingly or intentionally brought about." While few could argue this logic, which "innocents" are we to be concerned with in the Iraq conflict? The people in danger from Saddam Hussein's potential weapons or the thousands of people dying every day in Iraq from the ecological damage done to their country during the Gulf War? Claiming

that the only lives worth protecting are American lives would be obvious ethnocentrism, but ethical relativism may be difficult to defend under these particular circumstances. It is one thing to blame Saddam Hussein for his people's misery because he refuses to cooperate with UNSCOM, but does admittance into controversial areas justify denying people food and needed medicine? Former United States Attorney General Ramsy Clark has issued charges against the United States, Britain and United Nations of having directly caused the deaths of more than 1,500,000 people, including 750,000 children, in Iraq as a result of the Gulf War and Resolution 986. Specifically, he has accused these super-powers with genocide, crimes against humanity and the use of a weapon of mass destruction. Mr. Ramsey believes that by depriving the people of Iraq of "the essentials to support and protect human life," the United States and her allies are committing the immoral acts that Richard Wasserstrom described. He charges the United States with criminal acts by intentionally exposing the people of Iraq to radiation, extorting money from the Iraq government by demanding half the value of all oil sales be paid for reducing sanctions and misinforming and manipulating the press about the conditions in Iraq. He is not alone in this reasoning. The Vietnam Veterans Against The War Anti Imperialist point out that United States is "the world's largest holder, user and seller of weapons; nuclear, gas, biological and conventional." This group alleges that the United States has no right to be persecuting Iraq for possessing the very weapons they either sold or guaranteed the loans for in the first place. The V.V.A.W.A.I. suggests that perhaps the reason the United States is so convinced the palaces contain illegal weapons is because they know exactly what is missing from the "master list." There is no way of determining what killed the 100 children whose bodies were carried in a procession of tiny caskets through Baghdad. Shouting "Down with America!" and claiming that America is God's enemy the people of Iraq blame the sanctions. They maintain that the blockade is a worse weapon of mass destruction than what might be hidden inside the palaces- but is it?

Recently, when a group of journalists were taken on a tour of a few of Saddam's palaces, they were shown estates with "lawns as big as soccer fields and ornate sitting rooms." The mansions boasted domed halls, tiled with Italian marble, and the grounds were so large that the reporters had to be bused from one area to another. When asked why UNSCOM was not being permitted into the opulent locations, Iraq's deputy Prime Minister replied, "You are guests. You are not inspectors. Guests are allowed, inspectors are not allowed. Very simple." Although some of the palaces were vacant and had no furniture, armed guards were posted outside, as if defending something hidden from the visitors. The officials appeared unconcerned at the incongruity of blaming the United States for the people's wretchedness while openly displaying the government's obvious wealth. Despite the fact that their complaints are legitimate, these types of inconsistencies make it difficult to defend the position of Iraq's leaders. When writing about the responsibilities of the state to its people, Michael Walzer defined the various ways a government may provide a communal provision. In his essay, "Security, Welfare and the Communal Provision," he outlines the moral duties of those in authority have to provide for their people; not the least of these is some form of protection from assault. Another important aspect of a government's obligation to provide, according to Walzer, is ensuring that the socially recognized needs of the people are met. These needs are not something that should be considered superfluous and cannot be met by the excess capital of the group for if "men and women appropriate vast sums of money on themselves, while needs are still unmet, act like tyrants, dominating and distorting the distribution of security and welfare." It is uncertain whether Iraq has destroyed their weapons of destruction and we may never know where they originally obtained these instruments of war, but upon close inspection, something becomes apparent. The Iraq government is dishonorable.

The principal motive that is given for opposing UNSCOM's entrance into the palaces is one of respect. The Iraq government is demanding that the world recognize their right, as an independent culture, to protect what they consider inviolable. This request would be reasonable were it being made by a government that had met the communal provision of its people and had behaved in a morally dignified manner. The integrity of such a dominion would be plain and the United Nation's persecution of the country would be morally wrong. The United States' incentive for wanting to control Iraq may very well be one of "dual containment" of both Iraq and Iran with a long term plan to isolate other countries such as Syria and Israel in attempt to control available recourses. It may turn out that the United States did provide Iraq with weapons and at one time promised Saddam Hussein that the U.S. would remain neutral when Iraq invaded Kuwait. There is a possibility that the United Nations is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraq people, and if any of these things prove true, they would be immoral and should be addressed as criminal acts. However, when Iraq chose to ignore the plight of its people- the disease, the starvation, and the dying of so many of its children- and elected instead to build statues of Saddam Hussein, they lost their credibility. The sanctions imposed on Iraq may not be ethical, but the Iraq government's negligence toward its people has shown that UNSCOM's fears may be justified. For if a leader refuses to do everything within his power to protect the innocent lives of his people, then all of his subsequent actions are suspect. If Iraq were truly concerned with the morality of invading their sovereign sites, they would be equally concerned with meeting the needs of humanity. Claiming that a structure is sacred, without showing the same regard for human suffering, has invalidated their demands for respect. After the First World War, although as part of the Peace Treaty Germany was not to maintain a military or manufacture any weapons; the Germans and the Soviet Union secretly combined forces. From 1922 to 1933, the Germans tested their technological skills on Soviet territory in exchange for allowing the Russian government to participate in military maneuvers. It was during this period that a toxic gas was developed for use in human extermination and was put to the test during the next World War during what we have come to call the Holocaust.

Perhaps, if the powers that had imposed the limitations on Germany had been more vigilant in enforcing their sanctions thousands of Jews and others would not have died. Perhaps not, but it is an interesting thought when one considers the potential for disaster. If a country that watches as its people die in the street and refuses to cooperate with those who could stop the anguish really is hiding weapons in their palaces, the United Nations not only has an ethical right to enter... they have a moral obligation to do so.