Front Page   

Duty to defend peace: Bush

By Sridhar Krishnaswami

Washington OCT.16. With as many as 100 Republicans and Democratic law-makers looking on in the East Room of the White House, the U.S. President, George W. Bush, today signed into law the Iraq Resolution which authorises the use of force. The message to the international community from the President was the need to ``face up to our global responsibility to confront Saddam Hussein''.

The ceremony had its usual pomp and splendour with several of the senior Cabinet members present on the occasion. The resolution was cleared by the Senate and the House last week in solid numbers even as there were a number of Democrats who were not easily impressed by either the wording of the resolution or the rationale.

``Those who choose to live in denial may eventually be forced to live in fear,'' Mr. Bush said. ``Every nation that shares the benefits of peace also shares the duty of defending the peace,'' he said, in a remark pointed to the United Nations where a debate is going on in the Security Council.

By signing the resolution into law, Mr. Bush made it clear that he had not yet called for formal military action against Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein. At the same time, the U.S. President left no one in doubt as to how he was hoping to avoid a war — Baghdad must agree to tough, unconditional and unfettered weapons inspections. ``Our goal is to fully and finally eliminate a threat to world peace and to America,'' Mr. Bush said. ``We will defend our nation and lead others in defending the peace.''

The tough and yet carefully-chosen words of the President came on the day the Security Council began its first day of an open debate with the Republican administration, fully aware of the sharp criticism that is on the cards for its Iraq policies.

One notable absentee in the White House today was the House Democratic leader, Richard Gephardt, who helped the White House not only craft a resolution against Iraq but was also instrumental in helping break the logjam with the Democrats. Officially, it is on account of scheduling. But Mr. Gephardt had been flayed by critics within the party who believed that he had put his personal interests — read the Presidential elections of 2004 — over and above that of the party. The Senate Majority leader, Tom Daschle, was also not present due to scheduling conflicts.

Only seven Republican law-makers — six in the House and one in the Senate — opposed the White House over the Iraq Resolution and there was strong Democratic support.

Critical to the White House was that not much tinkering was done with the original draft submitted to Capitol Hill. The resolution requires the President to inform Congress after 48 hours of an attack as to why further diplomatic initiatives could not have protected American interests.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Govt. orders withdrawal of troops from IB
• Pak. declines comment
• J&K Governor gives time till Oct. 21
• Opposition parties reject new NCERT textbooks
• Tapes of Thackeray speech may be sent to Centre: Bhujbal
• Duty to defend peace: Bush
• Hike in petrol prices
• 8 injured in Gujarat blast
• Salman's bail plea rejected
• No free power for farmers

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu