Iraq casts its lot with Saddam; U.N. must now respond

The Iraqi parliament has voted to affirm that the future of the nation is in the hands of Saddam Hussein. Asked by the United Nations to respond by Friday on whether the nation is prepared to accept a tough regime of weapons inspection, the parliament has said that it wouldn't.
Instead, the 250-member parliament said the "political leadership" should "adopt what it considers appropriate to defend the Iraqi people and Iraq's independence and dignity" and expressed full support for President Saddam Hussein in whatever he might do.
This posture does not bode well for Iraq, its parliament or its people. It is also a challenge to the United Nations, which is belatedly attempting to hold Iraq to the provisions of the 12-year-old ceasefire that ended the Persian Gulf War. That ceasefire called for Saddam and Iraq to surrender their weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear. Obviously, that could not be accomplished through the honor system, and so Saddam was obligated to cooperate with weapons inspections teams.
History of concessions
But over the years, the United Nations wobbled, and even after making concession after concession to Saddam regarding inspections, it stood by while inspectors were stymied and, ultimately, shown the door in 1997.
The parliament made reference to Iraq's dignity and sovereignty, ignoring the fact that it was Iraq that invaded its neighbor, Kuwait, provoking the Persian Gulf War, and it was Iraq that lost that war. Nations that start wars of aggression choose to put their dignity and the sovereignty on the line. Iraq made that choice and lost.
The United Nations must now choose to defend its credibility by insisting that Iraq cooperate with weapons inspectors on the timetable established by the Security Council or face military action. The resolution adopted unanimously Friday demands that Iraq cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors, who can go anywhere at any time to search for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
The parliament had an opportunity to distance itself from Saddam's criminal behavior. Its decision not to do so was a bad one. If Saddam responds to an invasion by using chemical or biological weapons against advancing troops, or if he retaliates with acts of terrorism against Western targets, he will be doing so with the stated support and consent of the parliament.
After the dust settles, the international community must remember that.