Norris: Speaking of multilateralism, do you notice, as many have suggested, that there's an increasing unilateralist bent in the United States government?

Blix: Yeah. On big issues like war in Iraq, but in many other issues they simply must be multilateral. There's no other way around. You have the instances like the global warming convention, the Kyoto protocol, when the U.S. went its own way. I regret it. To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict.

Blix: We need to have patience in order to try to solve these conflicts as well. Like I said, I'm more worried long term about the environmental issues then the use of arms.

Blix: At the same time, though, one must not disregard and forget the things that are breeding these terrorist movements. Why do they become terrorists? Why do they become so desperate they are willing to blow up airplanes or buildings? Therefore we have to look at the social problems as well.

Norris: Why do you think there's such a reticence on the part of governments to deal with the "whys" of terrorism and instead simply go after the elimination of these terrorists in whatever ways they can? Blix: Because the root causes are even more difficult to tackle then the symptoms of it. To wield the big stick and strike here and there and have big surveillance of telephones or whatnot, that can be done, but to get at the social conditions — better democracy, more education in the Middle East, giving the hope for the many youngsters in that part of the world — now that's harder. Look at the Palestinians with the huge, huge percentage of unemployed. What does that breed? Anyone who's unemployed in the world, you feel there's no meaning and there's a risk that you drift over to something desperate. Yes, we have to tackle the social problems as well.

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday signed legislation creating a national "do-not-call" list intended to help consumers block unwanted telemarketing calls.

The bill allows the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees from telemarketers to fund the registry, which will cost about $16 million in its first year. The do-not-call program should begin operation by summer.

Outstanding. Now, maybe we can get them all to call France, instead.

Foreign Minister Antonio Martins da Cruz told state radio that if Portugal were attacked, "it would be unlikely France and Germany would come to our rescue." He said: "Let us suppose Portugal, proper or its archipelagos, faced a threat, who would come to our rescue? The European Commission, France, Germany? "I think it would be NATO who would come to our rescue, in other words, it would be the U.S., no one else would defend us. For instance, during the 1996 mission in Bosnia, operations took place with the support of 20 satellites, of which only one was European," and the remainder belonged to the U.S. "If we were attacked, is that what they would offer to defend us? How curious is this: in Bosnia, when we were called to send soldiers urgently to that region, the U.S. had C-17 and C-130 planes, and France leased ferry boats, which during the summer are employed in tourist services to Corsica.

". . .just as people of color can be awarded 20 points becuase of their historical exclusion, socio-economically disadvantaged students, regardless of their race, can also receive 20 points (no student can get points for each). Athletes being recruited on scholarship also receive 20 points. Applicants living in the Upper Peninsula are given 16 points. . .Extra points are awarded to men who go into nursing and women who major in engineering."

"Max Power, he's the man, the man you'd loved to touch. But you mustn't touch. His name sounds good in your ear, but when you say it you mustn't fear. Cause his name can be said by anyone."

"The members of the Security Council are now faced with a grave choice. If they fail to agree on a common position and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action would be seriously impaired."

"If, on the other hand, they can come together, even at this late hour, to address this threat in a united manner and ensure compliance with the previous resolutions, then the Council's authority will be enhanced and the world will be a safer place."

The problem, as I see it anyway, is that some members of the Council appear to have no interest whatsoever in "addressing this threat," in a unified or any other manner. Nor do they seem overly concerned with making the world "a safer place." Their sole purpose now is apparently to force the United States into a position where it must either sacrifice national security (not to mention the security and safety of hundreds of thousands or Iraqi citizens), or risk international resentment for an action that will be called "illegitimate," "imperialist," and "unsupported."

Wah.

It's hard to avoid or delay action, solely out of fear of something that's going to happen regardless of our actions, and this certainly wouldn't be the first time we've faced such criticism. I'm sure it won't end up being the last, either.

The United States will no doubt face this dilemma head-on and with confidence, as it has other such situations in the past. The real decision is before the members of the "Security" Coucil: whether to make the very body to which they belong obsolete by once more resigning themselves to empty threats, or to truly enhance their authority by proving once and for all that they are able to keep their word and do what is necessary to make the world a safer place.