Secretary of State Colin Powell revealed to the U.N. Security Council Wednesday previously unseen evidence of Iraqi weapons development, in violation of U.N. resolutions.
Using a combination of phone conversations, satellite photographs, and documented arrests Powell created the picture of a web of deception, as well as accusing Iraq of harboring Abu Musab Zarqawi, an al Qaeda operative.
Powell’s speech had been touted the week before as potentially breaking the standoff between the three permanent members of the Security Council that could veto U.S.-led military action in Iraq by offering an “Adlai Stevenson moment,” recalling the former U.S. Ambassador’s presentation to the U.N. in 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
While Stevenson used clear spy photos to buttress his claims of Soviet deception, Powell’s evidence was circumstantial, according to Ron Tammen, director of the Hatfield School of Government.
Tammen sees the speech as an effort to hasten the U.N.’s approval of military action in Iraq.
“The whole body of evidence was designed to impress upon them the immediacy of taking action on Iraq,” he said.
While Powell’s speech spoke to points of concern for Americans, mention of terrorist plots against France and other countries underlined the Bush administration’s goal of convincing the last three permanent members of the Security Council who have voiced opposition to military involvement in Iraq, Russia, China and France, of the necessity of the U.S. plan.
“He has a us audience, a world audience, but more particularly his immediate audience is Russia, China and France,” Tammen said.
Tammen doesn’t feel that Powell’s speech had the administration’s planned effect of turning the opposition around.
“I don’t think anything in the speech today was as compelling as it may be for Americans,” Tammen said.
“I don’t think that France, Russia and China have as their primary concern the evidence, I think they feel it’s a unipolar world and they don’t like the U.S. going around and, in their words, acting without restraint,” Tammen said.
Tom Hastings, Oregon Peace Institute board member, feels that Powell’s speech will present a new challenge to his work as an activist for peace.
“Powell’s speech went to convince the average American to support the war,” he said.
Hastings feels that Powell’s carefully constructed arguments will do well to support administration claims.
“Powell’s very persuasive and yet there are alternatives to bombing a country to smithereens and killing half a million civilians to somehow enforce a U.N. resolution,” he said.
“Tommy Franks is the one who would be running this war, and [he] is touring in the area, and meeting with people like King Abdullah the Second and promising (Abdullah), the King of Jordan, more U.S. weapons,” Hastings said.
Hastings sees more U.S. military support, for political support from the surrounding nations as a bad deal.
“The various governments that we’re supporting with huge military deals are doing things just as bad as Iraq,” he said.