Ends v. means

01.27.2003

There's a great story in the Christian Science Monitor about today's report by Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq. Blix stated Iraq isn't fully complying; inspectors also found evidence of long range chemical and biological weapons development. The US views this as failure; some countries call for more inspections. The Monitor does a great job laying out both arguments.

The Monitor's article (and headline) raises an important question. Are inspections an end in themselves? Political actions involve means (process) and ends (goals). We have to ask ourselves what our goal is. Disarmament? Peace? War? Not-war? Inspections? The US goverment frames the discussion around disarmament. Arguments that don't address this question (i.e. how can we disarm Iraq) won't influence the White House.

Posted by Miguel at 02:08 PM

Comments

"That's what makes our European allies nervous: They don't believe us when we say our primary goal is ridding Saddam of WMD," says Hannum.

Neither do I believe Hannum.
Who's next? N Korea?

Posted by: Lippy Lin at January 27, 2003 02:40 PM