The antiwar sentiments grow ever more shrill.
This past week saw continued publicity seeking by
pacifist celebrities with no foreign policy
experience. Their "Million Modem March" concept
brilliantly illustrated activism for the
twenty-first century: protests by-the-click, with
little commitment of time or effort (or knowledge)
needed. President Jacques Chirac brought French
haughtiness to a new level by scolding Eastern
European countries for not having "well brought-up
behavior," since they dared side with the U.S.
position on Iraq. And just yesterday, Mexico
thumbed its nose at us, standing by its decision to
oppose the U.S. on the U.N. Security Council.
"I want to reiterate that Mexico's position has
been and will be very clear," said Mexican Interior
Minister Santiago Creel. "It will exclusively serve
our interests, the interests of the Mexicans and
Creel claimed that Mexico's stance in the
U.N./Iraq crisis symbolized the country's "peaceful
vocation." In reality, the stance appears to be a
strategic choice calculated to spurn the U.S. for
not legalizing the status of millions of illegal
alien Mexicans now living in the U.S.
More disturbing, however, is the vow to serve
only "the interests of Mexicans" on the Security
Council. Apparently Creel has confused the mandate
of the U.N. Security Council with republicanism.
Perhaps he believes that, as an elected member of
the Council, Mexico is there to represent the
interests of its citizens, as a Senator elected to
Congress would represent his constituents. This
could not be farther from the truth.
Summarizing the U.N. charter, the Web site of
the Security Council states the following in its
first paragraph: "The Security Council has primary
responsibility, under the Charter, for the
maintenance of international peace and security."
The interests of Mexico or any other member nation
do not enter the equation, unless those interests
are a threat to "international peace and security."
If action that runs contrary to Mexico's "peaceful
vocation" is needed to protect international
security, then Mexico has no choice but to support
Interestingly, all of this peacemongering
appears to be having an unintended effect. As radio
commentator Joe Crummey commented during my drive
home last night, the worldwide antiwar protests of
this past week just might induce war, not prevent
it. Saddam Hussein's seeming capitulation after the
last round of inspections staved off the threat of
immediate invasion. But now, emboldened by recent
antiwar protests and division amongst world
leaders, he has backpedaled on some of his
promises. If Iraqi cooperation continues to wane,
the only result will be war.
Strickland ALL RIGHTS