U.S., Russia Clash on New Iraq Measures in UN
Posted on 09/17/2002 11:34:32 AM PDT by RCW2001
|
U.S., Russia Clash on New Iraq Measures in UN
|
| Sept. 17 — By Evelyn Leopold UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Russia and the United States clashed openly on Tuesday about whether to hold Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's feet to the fire in a new U.N. Security Council resolution before weapons inspectors return. Moscow's Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, told a news conference, which included Secretary of State Colin Powell, that Iraq's offer to allow the inspectors to return without conditions made council action unnecessary at this time. "From our standpoint we don't need any special resolution" for international inspectors to return, said Ivanov, whose country has veto power in the 15-nation Security Council. "All necessary decisions about that are on hand," he said, referring to past council resolutions. Russia has veto power in the 15-nation Security Council. The United States, whose declared policy is to seek Saddam's removal, vowed to work for a tough new U.N. resolution after Iraq announced on Monday it was ready to allow the return of inspectors after barring them for nearly 4 years. While Washington speaks of "regime change," many countries are seizing on Iraq's offer, conveyed in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, as a justification to avert a U.S. military strike. But Powell said Iraq's short letter did not acknowledge "the error of its ways for the past 12 years." Instead Baghdad was responding to President Bush's tough speech in the U.N. General Assembly last Thursday, he said. "The only way to ensure that it is not business as usual, and to make sure that it is not a repeat of the past, it seems to me, anyway, is to put it in the form of a new U.N. resolution," Powell said." "These are issues that have to be discussed now and not at some future time," he said at the news conference following a meeting of international mediators on the Middle East. ANNAN TAKES MIDDLE COURSE Annan took a middle course. He agreed with Ivanov that the "only way to disarm Iraq was to have the inspectors on the ground." But he said Security Council members could not return to "business as usual" given Iraq's past history. "So we should take steps to assure the inspectors are able to go about their work unimpeded with the full cooperation," Annan said. The Security Council met on Tuesday but members said there was no extensive discussion on Iraq. With many foreign ministers in New York for the General Assembly session, talks about Iraq are taking place in corridors. France wants to hold off until later a resolution to authorize the use of military force, depending on how the weapons inspections proceed. "I think that, already, all the elements that are needed to act are there," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters late on Monday, an apparent reference to existing resolutions. The inspectors left Iraq in December 1998, just before a U.S.-British bombing blitz designed to punish Baghdad for its alleged failure to cooperate with them. Bush administration officials prefer one resolution that would require Iraq's complete cooperation for inspections and refer to consequences if Baghdad did not comply, thereby leaving Washington to decide if and when a military assault was necessary. ARAB RELIEF "This is the beginning of a process of easing the tensions," Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said on Tuesday. Calling Iraq's decision a positive step, Jordan's foreign minister, Marwan Muasher, told reporters, "The letter is clear and we should take it at face value." Arab countries, which view Israel's occupation of Palestinian and other Arab lands as a greater threat to regional stability than Iraq, are wary of any attack on Baghdad that lacks Security Council authorization. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, welcomed the news and said he was ready for immediate talks in New York on the practical arrangements for the resumption of inspections. Under the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire terms, the inspectors must verify the dismantling of any Iraqi programs for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and long-range missiles, before sanctions can be suspended. The Iraqi letter from Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said Baghdad wanted to fulfill council resolutions and to "remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." It said this was a first step toward a "comprehensive solution" that should include the lifting of U.N. sanctions imposed for Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Blix has a staff of 63 in New York, some of whom could go to Baghdad quickly to analyze Iraq's chemical, biological and missile programs. Two hundred trained experts from 44 nations are on call and could be put to work within weeks. Nuclear arms inspectors are handled by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Commission. |
From our standpoint we don't need any special resolution" for international inspectors to return, said Ivanov, whose country has veto power in the 15-nation Security Council. "All necessary decisions about that are on hand," he said, referring to past council resolutions.
Sounds to me like the Russians are saying the same thing we are, or were.
The problem is the USA wants to pass a new resolution for regime change purposes. The old UN resolution still allows force as a means of getting inspectors back in if they are blocked, but not for regime change.
I am all for getting Saddam out, but Bush's State Dept. stupidly tied it to the war on al-Qaida. I know why they did it, they don't respect the intelligence of the American people and the Foggy Bottom pinheads look for easy to understand concepts for complicated problems as a way to get the American people to back the removal of Saddam.
I wish the White House would level with us like we had a college degree and understood the complexities of the situation. Treat us like the adults we are.
Perhaps us Westerners are the ones who need to sober up and deal with reality? Iraq is but the beginning... get ready to rumble.
But Iraq made no such offer, making his point irrelevant (and dishonest).
Other countries with their heads out of their butts know this. Hence the resistance from the Russians, Chinese, and French. Partly because of their financial aims in Iraq, and partly from instinct, they cling desperately to the U.N. S.C. as a method of controlling the Americans.
The resistance of these countries has been much noticed by our media, in a pathetic attempt to undermine domestic support for the president. What seems to be going unnoticed, however, is the tremendous stick the U.S. wields. U.S. unilateral action would be a disaster for the S.C. Such flagrant contempt for the U.N., deliberately displayed while all the world was watching, would be a crushing blow to what little prestige the body retains. Furthermore, were America to become so exasperated as to leave the S.C. behind the U.N. would forfeit any prospect of influencing our future activities. This possibility must seem especially alarming to the U.N.
The president's bellicose speaking since last Thursday is aimed exactly at this sore spot. He's reminding the U.N. constantly of his willingness, and political ability, to act without them. This forces the S.C. to go the extra mile, and then some, to satisfy the U.S.
A Congressional resolution authorizing force that isn't tied to U.N. action would be the final tolling of the bell. Bush would then enjoy both public support and congressional approval, and thus would have no significant political restraints on his actions. The U.N. would have to work with us, or face the unappetizing alternative of the U.S. occupying Iraq anyway with the U.N.'s influence gone.
Bush is going to get congressional approval. So, we will get much of what we want from the S.C., even with Iraq's latest offer.
You got it, dude! Iraq is only 'next'. It's time to kick some butt.
The U.N coming crashing down if the U.S. acts unilaterally wtih perhaps Britain, Australia and Canada? Interesting. But have you thought of the flip side? What if every other nation becomes so tired and threatened of U.S. unilateralism and their "big stick" that they decide to form alliances and the like to counter the U.S?
Anyway, its gonna be interesting watching all the manouvering (sp) of the major players in the next couple of days/weeks.
There are risks to Bush's plans. Battle in Iraq could result in a reverse, or there may be some Islamist activity in other parts of the Middle East. We might face another atrocity at home.
One of the least likely outcomes is some anti-U.S. coalition organized to oppose us. I can't imagine any Western governments actually acting to resist us over Iraq. Consider that the Europeans found it hard enough to pay for their defense, much less organize independently of us, when the Soviet Union quite clearly threatened to overrun them. Whatever their rhetoric, the Europeans understand that they are American allies.
Russia has much more to gain by remaining on our good side than by protecting Iraq. China would much rather fight its battles with us over matters much more important to it. Like Taiwan. Each of them has a lot of mutual emnity, more than our hostility to Iraq can overcome.
The Arab countries are not capable of more than duplicity and empty threats. They are incapable of organizing.
Anyway, the threat from Iraq is quite real. The president is right to press forward against it. Better the U.N. be inspired to renewed anti-American gossiping than the U.S. face a nuclear-armed, hostile, and determined Iraq.
I wasn't talking about any kind of anti-U.S. coalition organised to support Iraq in the upcoming war. I was talking about after the war and i'm not talking months after the war but years and decades. I think its quite possible that many nations will form alliances and pacts (formal and informal) to contain the U.S. History shows that weaker nations form pacts to counter the stronger nations (U.S. this time round). The question is who will be with who?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.