Bush should listen to international friends

by Michelle Singer
The Daily Bruin

University of California-Los Angeles (U-WIRE) - When was the last time China, Russia and France all agreed on a topic of international policy? Diplomats and war hawks alike should take notice.

Although all three countries have become a nuisance to President Bush's "we're going to war" campaign, each has a valid point about impending actions taken in relation to Iraq. Despite U.S. wishes for these nations to comply with its campaign, the United States should take into account the relatively reasonable demands these three members of the U.N. Security Council are placing on it and Britain.

The French have been somewhat ridiculed by the international community as a self-involved country for a long time. However, the French seem to have the most reasonable and non-reactionary outlook on Iraq at the moment. While Bush is practically ready to launch a full-scale attack, France's approach is much more reasonable.

The United States and Britain are said to be drafting one all-encompassing resolution with provisions for the use of force within seven days given noncompliance.

Seven days? One week? With the way this process has been moving, stipulation will almost guarantee war. France's proposal allows for two U.N. Security Council resolutions: one with provisions for a return of weapons inspectors, and the other with grounds to use of force if Iraq does not comply satisfactorily. Both the Chinese and the Russians agree diplomatic channels should be used until they are exhausted; only then should war be an option.

It takes little more than an example of elementary school antics to know what the right instinct is here. If there are rumors the big class bully has plans to start a fight with you, will you immediately go confront him alone? No, you will make a concerted effort to separate rumors from fact, investigate the threats, attempt to settle in a nonviolent manner and then gather your friends together to help make sure you win whatever confrontation arises. Why would you want to get into a fight when you do not have to?

This little kid mentality, although admittedly oversimplified, provides a guide to common sense. A concept that, for the most part, appears to be lacking throughout most of American officials' reasoning behind their actions. Why go it alone when you can have friends along to help you?

Friends provide backup, assistance and different viewpoints on important issues such as this one. Why does the Bush administration seem so determined to isolate the United States from the common sense of having allies when it would be easy to include the rest of the world in the decision making?

There is an undeniable problem here. Perhaps all the rumors are true, and Saddam the menace really does have weapons of mass destruction he intends to use at some point. But what happens if the United States attacks Iraq unilaterally and unintended consequences ensue? What if Iraq then invades Israel, Israel attacks back, and suddenly the entire Middle East is at war?

This conflict would most likely pit the United States and Israel against all of the Arab countries in the region and could well divide the whole world. Not only would U.S. oil interests be threatened, but it would most likely alter the entire balance of world power. Would the United States then expect its former allies, such as France or Russia (whose support is tenuous on the best of occasions), to fully support it when they were originally ignored?

Everyone supposedly has the same objective here: Make sure Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction and ensure it has no means of attaining them. The United States should stop pushing war so adamantly and listen to its friends at the United Nations - they might have good proposals or alternatives.

There is no need to lay off the pressure the United States has placed on Iraq; it should remain. However, this pressure should lead progressive steps, the next of which is the return of weapons inspectors. If the United Nation fails to act, that is one thing. But as long as the U.N. Security Council is still actively pursuing the issue, the United States should show deference to the international community in trying to avoid war.