Yesterday, President Bush put an end to diplomatic negotiations with Iraq and the United Nations, withdrawing the proposed Security Council resolution to use force in Iraq after the set March 17 disarmament deadline. And in an unsurprising move, Bush delivered an ultimatum last night calling for Hussein to leave his country within 48 hours or face a military invasion. All of this evolved in the face of global disapproval and strong opposition within the ranks of the United States' closest ally in this conflict, the United Kingdom. Whatever threat Iraq may pose to the United States, the danger is not so imminent as to warrant military action as early as tomorrow. While it is difficult to wait out such an intense conflict and because many Americans simply want to get this encounter over with, in the long run a patient attitude and a more genuine effort toward international diplomacy would benefit all nations concerned. The credibility of the United Nations is at stake and international arbitration must be allowed the time necessary for completion.

Yesterday, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters, "The diplomatic window has closed." But this end to diplomacy is too hasty. As early as Feb. 5, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell asked how much longer the U.N. Security Council would allow Iraq to defy its resolutions before ending the regime's 18-month noncompliance. Yet, it goes unnoticed that Israel, a valued ally of the United States, has a 35-year record of noncompliance. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 have called for Israel to withdraw from territories it has occupied since 1967. But it has not, and 3 million Palestinians living under Israeli control continue to suffer. For the United States' efforts to disarm Iraq to be respected, we must hold our allies to the same standards as our enemies.

The existence of an international diplomatic body is essential for peace, and it would be foolhardy to circumvent the United Nations out of "convenience." Hasty moves on the part of the United States will effectively discredit the United Nations and its Security Council with grave consequences for generations to come, including the possible unnecessary escalation of future international conflicts. When the world's only superpower will not answer its allies' pleas for restraint, a dangerous precedent is set.

The U.S. government must also remain cautious in the rhetoric it uses in these tense times. Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Administration Committee, acted spitefully in ordering french fries and french toast served in the U.S. House of Representatives' cafeterias renamed "freedom fries" and "freedom toast." Besides the immaturity, futility and arrogance of the move, it was small-minded for this congressman to attempt to undermine our usually amicable relations with France.

The United States and France are engaged in a moral conflict of international importance, but it is ludicrous to make us enemies. Of course, the main impact of U.S. arrogance will not be on futile semantics, but on the type of diplomatic community that will evolve when the "War on Terror" ends. Burning bridges now will backfire, and France could prove a valuable ally in future matters.

While armed conflict with Hussein may be unavoidable and ultimately necessary, Bush should more carefully consider the region's history as well as humanity's future in making his decision. The next few days, or even hours, will shape history for decades, and it is imperative that the Bush administration demonstrates maturity and respect for other sovereign nations, as well as for relations among them. As it now stands, the United Nations has already been irreparably altered by recent events. Bush must now be even more cautious in whatever steps he chooses to take: The future of international diplomacy hangs in the balance.