Washington waits for Blair to cut losses at UN

Financial Times ^ | March 14 2003 | By Guy Dinmore in Washington

[Lessismore]

The Azores summit is billed by the three allies as the "final pursuit" of a UN resolution, but the view from Washington is that diplomacy has failed and it is time for Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, to cut his losses and prepare for war on Iraq without the full legal cover he had sought.

"We are looking for closure. The UK is looking for cover," was how one senior Bush administration official summed up the difference in approach to the UN that is putting a strain on Mr Bush's "coalition of the willing". Mr Bush, he said, had decided on the night of his press conference on March 6 that the time had come to settle the matter, saying the US would call on Security Council members to "put their cards on the table".

Since then, the president has let the timetable slip and the pressure is on Mr Blair to decide whether he wants to put the proposed resolution to a vote.

"I have no pity for Blair," the senior official commented, saying the prime minister had exhibited a weakness in dealing with the UN issue that had encouraged senior members of his party, such as Clare Short, to revolt.

Debate over the legality of a war against Iraq is also driving the US and UK towards abandoning the new resolution. The US holds that previous UN resolutions provide legality, while the latest position of the UK attorney-general, at least according to a US official, is that defeat of the proposed resolution would take away that authority.

Behind the scenes, there has been exasperation in the UK camp at what it regards as the lukewarm and bungled attempts at diplomacy by the US. All this week, US officials refused to give full public endorsement of the new UK wording setting tests of compliance for President Saddam Hussein and a deadline beyond March 17.

US officials said they could not back something that did not already have commitments of support, but UK negotiators said this undermined their authority and sowed confusion among the six "undecideds" on the Security Council.

Martin Indyk, former ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration, said it was the "hubris, overwhelming arrogance and pride" of the Bush team that led to diplomatic failures in crucial dealings with Russia and Turkey. "We took the Russians for granted," he commented.

An administration official, recounting a telephone conversation this week, quoted Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, as trying in vain to explain why he would not support the new resolution and telling Mr Bush they were talking past each other. "It went back and forth for 15 minutes," the official said.

While the US and UK share a strong sense of anger with France and Russia, which will outweigh any sense of recrimination at the island summit this weekend, officials indicate there could be serious differences on what kind of role Paris and Moscow, and the UN in general, should be allowed to play in a postwar Iraq.

[MizSterious]

"I have no pity for Blair," the senior official commented, saying the prime minister had exhibited a weakness in dealing with the UN issue that had encouraged senior members of his party, such as Clare Short, to revolt."

(From the article above)

[Mr. Lucky]

Aside from the liberation of Iraq, were this whole episode to have no other result than to re-allign Britain, Australia and the United Sates into common cause against the forces of darkness, it would be worth it.

[UncleSamUSA]

It seems to me the Brits and Tony Blair have also misread President Bush, probably out of their own domestic weakness. When Pres. Bush said last Thursday that he was going to go ahead with a vote and that the March 17 deadline for compliance was firm, he really meant it. Bush meant to be firm and direct.

When the Brits came along with a 6-point plan that delayed a vote and pushed back the deadline for compliance, they HAD to know that this was in direct contravention to Bush's stated principles at the Press Conference. How could the US put its arms around pushing back the timetable beyond March 17 for a tentative proposal by the Brits that did not even have majority support less than a week after Bush told the world there would be a definite vote and that the March 17 date was firm??

What you have here is the Brits desperate beyond all comprehension to cobble together some sort of piece of paper that could get 9 votes at the Sec. Council almost no matter what it said or how long it took. The US position is: we have a military deadline to get this thing done fast and quick and with minimal casualties and we are going to stick to that.

Everyone likes to blame the Bush administration for being arrogant. I think if anything they can be faulted for being naive enough to think that strategic or economic allies like the Turks and the Russians would ultimately "see the light" and back us. Logically, they were right that these "allies" should have. But in the realpolitik of shifting world alliances and domestic political considerations, many countries who "should" have come to our side have not. If anything, the Bushites have learned a lesson that nothing is "in the bag" and that the old X-Files motto to "Trust No One" may be close to the truth.

But Blair's weakness and his willingness to concede any and every point to the French and Russians now makes a diplo resolution untenable. The Frogs will hardball and threaten a veto just to see Blair squirm. Unfortunately, Blair continues to play their game, making concessions and issuing desperate "compromise measures" that Chirac shoots down even before Saddam does.

The US is fed up with this and I expect Bush to tell Blair firmly tomorrow: We have been strung along by your requests but now that is done. We issued the Mideast Roadmap statement yesterday that you wanted, now it is time to get on with business. Are you aboard now or not.

[knighthawk]

Let the UN move to France, and stay there.

[Consort]

I just cut one loose for the UN.

[Mister Baredog]

Martin Indyk, former ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration

Yea, Clintoon's toadies are everywhere lately and as usual they are seldom confronted with the words of herr schlickmeister and his identical policy on Iraq. I guess it's because they knew he didn't mean it and Bush does. can you say:

HYPOCRITES!

[Mister Baredog]

Good analysis, I think that's about where we are now. It won't be much longer now Uncle SamUSA

[PhiKapMom]

"I have no pity for Blair," the senior official commented, saying the prime minister had exhibited a weakness in dealing with the UN issue that had encouraged senior members of his party, such as Clare Short, to revolt.

Looks like our small band of Freepers was right. We have been pretty much told we didn't know what we were talking about by not jumping on the Blair is wonderful bandwagon. We suspected Blair had gone weak with the United Nations and thought he came on strong at the beginning never thinking that Pres Bush was really serious about disarming Saddam by force.

A lot of Freepers have been shocked at my stand on President Bush because I thought he was cowtowing too much to Blair and to Powell at the United Nations. I have enough military background to know that all the delay that people were saying to get our military in place was a basic farce as they could have been in place and ready sometime ago.

Pentagon has workarounds for every contingency you can name so Turkey not cooperating was not it.

The President tried to give Blair cover for his (Blair's) own political skin and Powell went nuts with diplomacy when he actually had the audacity to say the Inspectors were doing a good job last Sunday morning knowing full well that Blix had not reported the truth. Then we had the classic pictures of Bush calling all those 3rd world countries "begging" then to get on board the Blair resolution that he kept changing until it was so watered down it was a joke!

Being around the military, my loyalty is to them over any politician including a man I had supported since 1994. I believe that President Bush is back on track and it is time for Blair to either get on board or get out of the way. As I have said many times, Rumsfeld didn't make the remarks about the UK that some Freepers got so many about without clearing them.

I still support President Bush and expect from now on in he will be the President Bush I have supported who puts America first!

[PhiKapMom]

Everyone likes to blame the Bush administration for being arrogant. I think if anything they can be faulted for being naive enough to think that strategic or economic allies like the Turks and the Russians would ultimately "see the light" and back us.

That's how I see it as well and you can add Blair into that equation. I do not believe that President Bush was prepared for those idiotic six benchmarks of Blairs that caught them off guard. You could see in the joint press conference in D.C. several weeks ago there was a strain between the two and I would bet it has gotten worse in the last week. Pres Bush has been disgusted at both public appearances, first with Ireland when he read his remarks, and again during the Middle East plan that he had to give or Blair wouldn't come on board from all accounts.

Mr. Blair is about to meet the real George W. Bush, the Texan through the through!

[Dog]

The Tories will side with Blair....they announced it today.

Can you ping me tomorrow to the Live thread when Bush speaks ....I have to work so won't be around to comment.

[Wait4Truth]

Really great analysis, Uncle! I was one of the people that lost faith in Blair awhile back and I feel, unfortunately, vindicated. He is no Margaret Thatcher and he lost sight of his former desire to "do the right thing". President Bush is fed up and I am glad. No more excuses, Tony. You're either with us or against us.

[Wait4Truth]

Mr. Blair is about to meet the real George W. Bush, the Texan through the through!

And it's well deserved. Blair has been playing games. As we all know, this President will bide his time but when the time is up, it's up. Time's up, Mr. Prime Minister. The Texan is in full bloom now.

[PhiKapMom]

I sure will ping you! Should be interesting although the most interesting part will be what we don't hear!

[Dog]

Read between the lines....:-)

[PhiKapMom]

I sure did read between the lines! Guess not too many people want to read this thread or if they did comment!

[Mustang]

Agree w/ your above. Please note from the article:

"...Behind the scenes, there has been exasperation in the UK camp at what it regards as the lukewarm and bungled attempts at diplomacy by the US..."

The "behind the scenes" initiator is the one and only dirtbag ex-president, TRAITOR Toon! His phone records should be subpoenaed!!

The Toons are CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGERS!!

Mustang sends.

[crazycat]

A most interesting point is that the legal advice Blair is getting says that a failed resolution would negate legal cover, according to this article.

He has the cover now.

The mood in the UK also seems to have calmed down a bit, now the Frog bashing has made it clear just who is causing the problems.

[Mister Baredog]

The "behind the scenes" initiator is the one and only dirtbag ex-president, TRAITOR Toon! His phone records should be subpoenaed!!

I agree but unfortunately they have been doing it in public as well!!

[Mustang]

"....doing it in public as well..."

Indeed....but, wouldn't it be the coup of all coups to the leftist, social- justice, hate-American crowd; aka friends of the Toons and Marx, if the NSA intercepted and captured bubba's telcons in which he is covertly snagged and nailed telling Blair and the EU weenies to sandbag Dubya?

Mustang sends.