FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 10/04/2002 7:47:54 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
In a sudden shift in tactics, the United States and Britain quietly ditched the draft of their hardline resolution on Iraq a few days ago, before it got to the negotiating table at the Security Council.
The proposed resolution was so tough it would virtually have committed the United Nations Security Council to a military strike on Iraq within weeks.
According to several Western diplomats, a decision was made on Tuesday to change tack. New talks began to try to bridge the yawning gap between the US and the French, who were refusing to endorse what they saw as a blank cheque to military action.
After signs of panic in the US camp, the rhetoric from Washington also shifted slightly by the weekend. Comments from the White House about regime change that could take the form of a bullet to Saddam Hussein's head eased. The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, began talking warmly about negotiations and diplomatic conversations taking place in private to deal with the threat from the Iraqi dictator.
Suddenly, too, the head of the UN weapons inspection team, Dr Hans Blix, no favourite in Washington, was going to talk to the Secretary of State, Colin Powell. This from an administration that has insisted for weeks that the issue is not weapons inspections but disarmament.
What changed? In substance, maybe not much. Though President George Bush toned down his rhetoric in the last 24 hours, until midweek he was still making his case for war with Iraq.
Describing Saddam Hussein as a student of Stalin who decapitates his opponents, puts their heads on display, rapes woman and makes children watch their parents being tortured, he was clearly not about to pull back from his mission to liberate Iraq.
The problem was that, despite the support of Britain, Australia, Israel and a few small states, the rest of the world was not quite ready to endorse America's helter-skelter race to war.
The message from Europe and America's Arab allies was "slow down". Colin Powell, for one, appears to have heard that message.
When Dr Blix and his colleague Dr Mohammed Baradei, from the International Atomic Energy Agency, returned from their talks in Vienna with the Iraqis and reported some progress, the atmosphere changed.
The weapons inspectors were due to go into Iraq in the middle of this month. But the Security Council permanent members were clearly divided on whether they should go.
Suddenly it was possible that weapons inspectors would be back in Iraq, albeit operating under the old resolution more favourable to Saddam. The US and Britain would be left threatening to go to war while the weapons inspectors were already on the job.
That would be a tough call, even for George Bush. America's hardline resolution was getting nowhere and a compromise was needed.
So the US has finally gone back to the negotiating table. One big plus for Washington, say UN diplomats, is that all members of the council are supporting a new resolution that will toughen up the inspection regime. Specifically, there is an agreement that the inspectors must have unfettered access to the presidential palaces that could hide weapons of mass destruction; that they should be able to interview Saddam's scientists in private, without guards looking over their shoulders, and that Iraq must guarantee the inspectors' safety.
There is less consensus on US and British proposals for armed US military officers to accompany the inspectors.
But the most delicate issue, as one diplomat put it, is the US demand for a new resolution to include the trigger for military action against Iraq if Saddam blocks inspectors.
There are several critical questions. What exactly can trigger the military action? How does the council judge whether Iraq is deceiving it? And is the trigger automatic, or does the Security Council reconvene before military action is decided.
While most of the council believes that Iraq needs to feel it is under the pressure of military action if it does not comply and disarm, the French insist they will not support a single resolution which can be triggered automatically. There is growing support for the French on the council.
In the next two weeks, before Dr Blix is due to go to Iraq, intense negotiations will take place between the US, France and Russia. A resolution on Iraq will come out of these talks. Whether it gives Washington a trigger for war is still unclear.
What is more certain is that with or without a Security Council resolution in its favour, the White House is committed to pressing ahead with its plans to topple Saddam Hussein.
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.